lint_flow

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

The description discloses the return structure (LayoutReport with issues, counts, summary) and the optional node_ids scoping. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but remains silent on these behavioral aspects.

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?

The description is well-structured with a concise summary followed by Args and Returns blocks. It avoids unnecessary words and presents information in a scannable format.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it lints, the parameters, and the return type. However, it omits explicit safety details (e.g., read-only) and does not elaborate on the format of node_ids beyond 'JSON array.' Still, given the output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The description explains both parameters in the Args section: flow_id as 'Flow ID to lint' and node_ids as 'Optional JSON array of node IDs to scope the check.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which provides no descriptions. It clarifies the purpose and optionality of node_ids, although the schema defines it as a string but the description indicates JSON array.

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's function: 'Lint a flow's node layout for overlaps, spacing, and wire crossings.' This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like visualize_flows (visualization) and get_diagnostics (general diagnostics).

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. There are no statements about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_diagnostics or visualize_flows. The usage is implied by the term 'lint,' but the description does not clarify when this check is appropriate or mention any exclusions.

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