config_lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scan' reasonably implies read-only and the scope is stated, but key behaviors are undisclosed: what the output looks like, how .xcconfig files relate to the lone pbxprojPath input, and error handling for invalid/missing paths. Adequate but not transparent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb first, target second, purpose third. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return format but does not. The .xcconfig handling path is unresolved, and there is no severity/fix guidance. For a simple 1-param lint tool the gap is moderate — usable but the agent must guess at outputs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% — the single pbxprojPath parameter is clearly described in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter meaning; it even introduces mild ambiguity by mentioning .xcconfig without explaining how those files are discovered from pbxprojPath.

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?

Specific verb 'Scan' + specific resources '.pbxproj/.xcconfig' + clear objective 'known build-speed anti-patterns'. This clearly differentiates from siblings: build_run executes, cache tools manage entries, build_timing_report profiles execution — config_lint is static analysis of build config files.

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 purpose statement implies usage context (checking config for build-speed issues), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent would infer usage from the verb rather than being told.

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