lint_architecture

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

Discloses that it's pure computation with no LLM, no network, and no cloud interaction. Lists specific checks (errors and warnings) beyond what annotations (none) provide.

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?

Well-structured: uses bullet points for error/warning categories and a separate paragraph for usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and no redundant text.

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?

Given the single parameter and presence of output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, inputs, and outputs. No gaps identified.

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?

Only one parameter 'spec_json' with 100% schema description coverage. The schema already explains its purpose and what checks it runs. The main description adds no further parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it lints architecture for anti-patterns and best-practice violations. Distinguishes itself from sibling 'security_scan' by specifying its focus on architectural hygiene.

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?

Explicitly compares with 'security_scan', defining when to use each and recommending both for comprehensive review. Provides clear context for tool selection.

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