gauge_lint

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool runs without LLM calls, is fast, and returns structured JSON. However, it does not state whether it modifies anything, requires a connection, or how it accesses the target server's descriptions.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the primary purpose and output, the second adds performance characteristics. No redundancy or filler.

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 lack of an output schema and five optional parameters, the description explains the output format at a high level but omits details on connection prerequisites, specific lint rules, and the exact JSON structure. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 a specific action: linting the tool description text of the target MCP server and returning improvement points as structured JSON. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like gauge_connect or gauge_report.

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 usage for linting tool descriptions but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as an existing server connection.

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