lint_file

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 never states that linting is non-mutating/report-only (fix_file and fix_solidity exist as mutating siblings), nor how results or errors are surfaced for a file outside the project root.

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 the scope constraint ('one Solidity file') stated immediately. Every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter, non-nested tool with full schema coverage this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least indicate that the call is a read-only analysis returning diagnostics, which it does not.

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 100% (filePath is documented as 'Path relative to the project root'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the path parameter beyond reinforcing that the file lives inside the project instance.

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 pairs a specific verb (lint) with a specific resource (one Solidity file), and the phrase 'one ... file' implicitly sets it apart from the whole-project sibling lint_project. However, it never addresses the sibling lint_solidity, so an agent cannot fully resolve which of the two file-level linters to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the alternatives (lint_solidity, lint_project, fix_file). The agent must infer that this is the single-file variant purely from the word 'one'.

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