Scene Lint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait — no code execution, hence no side effects — but says nothing about permissions, what happens on invalid code, or whether findings are errors vs warnings.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool that must be distinguished from several siblings.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description omits what linting covers, what severity of issues it reports, and when in a workflow (before scene_write?) it should be run. For a 2-required-param tool with zero schema docs and zero annotations, one sentence leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain project_id and scene_id — and it mentions neither. The parameter names are largely self-evident, which limits the damage, but no semantics (format, whether scene_id is namespaced by project, required-ness) are added.

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?

States a specific verb (lint) and resource (scene code) and adds the key qualifier 'without executing it', so the agent knows this is static analysis. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours like scene_inspect or scene_review, which an agent could plausibly confuse with linting.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The phrase 'without executing it' implicitly suggests using this instead of render/execute-based checks, but the agent must infer that routing decision.

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