biome_lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description simply restates the non-modifying behavior. It adds no additional behavioral context such as output format, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations already 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?

The description is a single, scannable sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the primary action and the read-only safety guarantee.

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 presence of sibling tools and three optional parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to scope the lint run, what the output contains, or when to prefer this tool over biome_check. The output schema and annotations partially compensate, but important gaps remain.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the level, paths, or changed_only parameters. An agent must infer meaning from parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for a three-parameter tool with no other explanatory text.

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 identifies the tool as running Biome lint diagnostics and explicitly states it does not modify files, making the core purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like biome_check or biome_format, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus biome_check or biome_format. The read-only nature is implied, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual clues to help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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