Lint a storyboard (preflight, no browser)

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavior: it is browser-free, it produces a per-scene pacing forecast, and it checks specific pitfalls. It also discloses that 'lang' lints a narrations[lang] translation at that language's speaking rate, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 two dense, information-rich sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Browser-free preflight over a storyboard') before enumerating checks and usage rules, and every clause contributes actionable information.

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 has an output schema, a read-only annotation, and a 5-parameter schema with 80% coverage, the description supplies the remaining context: when to run it, how inputs are mutually exclusive, what kinds of issues it detects, and what lang does. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds crucial parameter behavior: 'Pass exactly one of dir / path / json' and the meaning of lang. This compensates for the schema's otherwise sparse lang field and clarifies mutual exclusivity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'browser-free preflight over a storyboard', and lists concrete lint categories (pacing forecast, selector/wait pitfalls, no-op keys). It also signals how this differs from render/probe by saying it runs 'before probe/render', which helps an agent distinguish it from siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Run it after every storyboard edit, before probe/render' and 'Pass exactly one of dir / path / json'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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