run_lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the command is auto-detected and names possible linters, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, side effects, or what happens when no linter is detected, leaving behavioral expectations incomplete.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds concrete examples. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (5 optional params, no required params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and detection behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites or recommending run_command for arbitrary commands, but it is adequate for guiding an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage of all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about command detection and override behavior but does not add meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 runs the project linter/static checks using a command auto-detected from the repository, with a helpful list of examples (eslint, ruff, clippy, go vet, spotless). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_build and run_tests.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use it: to run linting/static checks on a project, as opposed to building or testing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use instructions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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