Lint Spec

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful behavioral details about the output format (violations grouped by severity with rule details and affected paths) and the requirement for project context, which goes beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, leading with the primary action and resource. It efficiently covers purpose, output, alternative tool, and a key prerequisite in three sentences without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly states what the return value contains: violations grouped by severity with rule details and affected paths. It also notes the project context requirement, covering the essential operational context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully describes the only parameter, specId, as a public ID/GUID of the API specification. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter-level detail, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: validating an API specification against style guide rules. It also explicitly distinguishes this from validate_spec, which checks against the OpenAPI standard, reducing ambiguity among sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides direct guidance on when to use this tool ('check against style guide rules') and when to use the alternative ('to check against the OpenAPI standard use validate_spec'). It also notes the prerequisite of project context, which is important for invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.