Lint an entry

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds valuable context by enumerating what lint categories are inspected (auth, evidence, live_check/auth_audit, secrets) which is beyond what the annotations reveal. It does not say what the errors/warnings look like, but the enumeration of check domains is substantial added value.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a parenthetical list of what is checked. Efficient and no wasted words, though the long comma-delimited list is dense and could be slightly clearer if structured differently.

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 description covers what lint checks and that it returns errors and warnings, which is the core of what an agent needs. With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves the parameter semantics and output shape underspecified. For a simple two-parameter read tool, it is adequate but incomplete.

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% and the schema has no descriptions for the two required parameters (category, id). The description says 'one entry' but never clarifies how category and id relate to identifying that entry, nor does it explain valid category values. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but does not.

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 (Run the catalog lint) on a specific resource (one entry) and enumerates exactly what is checked (vocabulary verbs, expressions, placeholders, auth, evidence, live_check/auth_audit, secrets). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like doctor (broader health check) and draft_entry, and an agent can tell what it is for without opening the schema.

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 scope ('one entry') and the list of checks imply this is a validation tool to run against a specific entry, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus doctor or save_entry, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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