nodejs_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention the auto-fix effect, return format, error handling, or permissions needed. Users are left guessing about side effects and output.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence—which is efficient. However, it omits essential details, so it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Still, it's well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete for a straightforward lint tool, but lacks information about what the output looks like (e.g., exit codes, formatted results) and how to interpret results. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 input schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional value. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema is complete, but the description could have provided context like default values or examples.

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 it runs ESLint on Node.js/TypeScript code, specifying the tool and target language. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'eslint', which likely does the same but generically. A brief note on how they differ would clarify purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eslint', 'lint_all', or 'make_lint'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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