Lint Assembly Instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'structured issues,' indicating a validation outcome. However, it does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or specific error conditions. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need for return format details, but the description could be more explicit about behavior.

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 concise sentences that front-load the key purpose and outcome. Every word is meaningful, and there is no unnecessary 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?

For a tool with three parameters and no annotation, the description is incomplete. It explains the general purpose and result, but lacks parameter documentation and any behavioral details beyond the basic function. The output schema helps, but the tool's full context is not covered.

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 description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters: 'instructions,' 'strict,' or 'return_fixed.' Without parameter descriptions, the agent cannot understand their meaning or how to use them correctly.

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's function: 'Lint Assembly Instructions without creating an Assembly. Returns structured issues.' It uses a specific verb ('Lint') and resource ('Assembly Instructions'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'transloadit_create_assembly' by highlighting that no assembly is created.

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 explicitly says 'without creating an Assembly,' which differentiates it from the main sibling tool. It implies the tool is for validation before creation, but does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools beyond the contrast with create_assembly.

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