lint_javascript_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs 'ESLint-style static checks' and returns 'warnings plus suggested fixes', which implies a read-only analysis operation. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the input code, requires specific configurations, has rate limits, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence: 'Run ESLint-style static checks and return warnings plus suggested fixes.' It efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (static analysis with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which should document return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 has 1 parameter ('code') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool analyzes JavaScript code. It doesn't explain the 'code' parameter's expected format, constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Run ESLint-style static checks and return warnings plus suggested fixes.' It specifies the action ('Run... static checks'), the target ('javascript code'), and the output format ('warnings plus suggested fixes'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_javascript_code' or 'security_check_javascript' that might also analyze JavaScript code.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'validate_javascript_code' or 'security_check_javascript', nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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