Theme Lint Twig

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what files are affected, whether it modifies the theme, or what permissions are required. 'Lint' implies analysis, but no explicit safety or side-effect details are given.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though extremely brief.

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 lint tool with one required and one optional parameter, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify parameter roles or when to use the tool, though the output schema reduces the need to explain returns.

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 never mentions 'machine_name' or 'path'. 'in theme' hints at a theme context but does not map to either parameter, leaving both parameters undocumented beyond their 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?

States a specific verb ('Lint') and resource ('Twig templates in theme'), making the tool's action clear. It does not name sibling alternatives, but no other lint tool exists in the sibling list, so differentiation is not strictly needed.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the purpose ('lint'), leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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