get_file_violations

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavior: automatic linter selection based on file type. It also mentions the return fields. However, it does not cover error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor gaps for a simple tool.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: first states core function, second explains linter selection and return info.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, how linter selection works, and what information is returned. Could mention error handling for missing files, but overall complete for typical use.

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?

There is only one parameter ('file_path') with full schema coverage (100%). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'absolute path' description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear semantics.

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 retrieves code violation lists for a file, specifies that YanceLint automatically selects the appropriate linter based on file type (P3C, ESLint, etc.), and lists returned information (message, severity, line number). This makes the purpose explicit and distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_health' and 'get_project_summary'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not conditions. However, given sibling tools are unrelated (health check, project summary), usage is implicitly clear. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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