Voice lint (AI-writing-tell scorer)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing that `threshold` (default 30) affects only summary wording, not which findings fire, and that `project` triggers extra rules from voiceProfile. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, dense paragraph covering purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral details without redundancy. It could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., separating parameter behavior), but every sentence provides essential information, and it remains brief given the complexity.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no enum constraints. The description explains the input role, parameter effects, and intended usage context (editing own drafts). It does not describe the exact return format, but deducing from context (scores/findings) is reasonable. The description is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke 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?

The input schema provides zero description coverage for the three parameters. The description compensates by explaining `project` applies that project's voiceProfile config (extraBannedPhrases, allowedTells, samplesNote) and `threshold` only changes summary wording. For `text`, the description's context (scoring own drafts) clarifies its role. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 identifies the tool as scoring text for AI-writing tells, listing specific patterns (e.g., 'delve', contrastive-pivot rhetoric, sycophantic openers) and referencing a research-backed ruleset. The verb 'score text' plus the resource 'AI-writing-tell scorer' provide a specific, immediate purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_feedback' or 'eval_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 explicitly states this tool is for editing 'YOUR OWN outbound drafts' and warns against using it to judge others' writing. It also explains when to pass the `project` parameter (to apply voiceProfile config) and states that `threshold` only changes summary wording, not which findings fire, providing clear guidance on use vs. non-use.

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