lint_project

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 does not disclose whether the lint is read-only or writes/auto-fixes files (a real ambiguity given fix_solidity and fix_file exist as siblings), what the result contains, or whether any setup is required. Only the project-scoped nature of the operation is conveyed.

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?

One short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler; every word serves the scope statement. 'This server instance project' is slightly wordy but not wasteful.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn behavior, and it omits whether files are modified, what the lint results look like, and what happens when no pattern is supplied. For a lint tool with sibling fix/explain tools, that leaves the agent guessing at the core semantics.

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% and the single 'pattern' parameter is fully documented in the schema as an optional project-relative glob. The description adds no format, default, or matching semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Solidity files) plus a scope qualifier ('in this server instance project'), which implicitly separates it from the file-level sibling lint_file. It stops short of naming or contrasting with siblings, but an agent can infer project-wide vs. file-level scope from the text.

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 mention of the alternatives lint_file, lint_solidity, or fix_solidity, and no stated preconditions (e.g., must the project be configured/compiled first). The only hint is the word 'project', which is inference rather than guidance.

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