Lint page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the detection scope (rendered-vs-source divergence), the fact that issues are silent/invisible to re-reading, and that it is a diagnostic rather than a fixer is implied by 'check'. It does not state whether results are page-wide or whether any remediation is offered, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with the triggers appended afterwards. The enumeration of failure modes is long but each item is a concrete, distinct diagnostic case rather than filler, so it earns its length – though it could be tightened without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the problem domain and the timing cue, which is sufficient for a one-parameter read tool. It leaves minor ambiguity about result granularity (page-wide vs per-section), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains 'id of the page to check'. The description adds no further parameter detail (no scope/range/format options), so the baseline 3 applies – the schema carries this dimension.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Check a page') and defines the exact class of problem: divergence between rendered output and markdown source. The enumerated failure modes (unknown :::block, silently unwrapping callouts, dropped raw HTML, missing wikilinks, broken attachments, ragged/overflowing tables) make it unmistakably distinct from sibling diagnostic tools like lint_deck or preview_page.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Run it after writing or editing a page') and pre-empts a likely alternative ('re-reading it is not a substitute for calling this'). It does not name or rule out sibling tools such as preview_page, find_overlaps, or suggest_links, so the routing guidance stops just short of a 5.

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