run_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions running linting and optional auto-fix, but does not disclose that auto-fix may modify files, nor does it describe output format or side effects. The tool could be destructive when fix=true, but this is not flagged, leaving behavior insufficiently 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key optional capability. The examples of linters add useful context without verbosity, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters, and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, the description lacks guidance on return values or exit behavior, and does not explain the effect of auto-fix on files. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps remain for an agent to infer, so it is not fully complete.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what is already structured. The phrase 'optional auto-fix' simply echoes the schema's fix parameter. No additional semantic detail is provided beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 runs linting, names specific linters (ESLint, Biome, Ruff, Clippy), and specifies the optional auto-fix feature. The phrase 'only code linting' distinguishes it from broader check tools like run_checks, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for linting-only tasks, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as run_checks or run_staged_checks. The 'only' qualifier is the sole differentiator, so while context is clear, loss of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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