tool_lint_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait (false positives are possible) and documents the return shape in lieu of an output schema, but says nothing about side effects, whether the project is modified, or runtime cost.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a checks list, a sibling comparison, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every line earns its place and there is no 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope of checks, sibling positioning, parameter meaning, and return structure. It omits only the safety/side-effect profile that annotations would normally supply.

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 compensate, and it does: 'Absolute path to the Ren'Py project root directory' adds path-type and root-directory semantics the bare schema property ('Project Path', string) lacks.

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 and resource ('Run Ren'Py lint on a project (static analysis)') and enumerates what it detects (undefined variables, unreachable code, missing labels). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool_compile_project by noting it is 'more thorough than compile'.

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?

Gives clear comparative guidance against compile ('more thorough ... but may produce false positives'), which tells the agent when this is the better choice. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule or a mention of tool_check_project, another plausibly overlapping sibling.

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