verilog_lint

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the tool returns (line, column, severity, rule diagnostics), which is helpful, but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires verible to be installed, or how it behaves on lint errors. It adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral detail.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states what diagnostics are returned. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are documented in the schema, and the description covers the essential return information. It does not explain error behavior or toolchain prerequisites, but those are minor gaps for this kind of lint wrapper.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already documents files, cwd, and ruleset clearly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Lints Verilog / SystemVerilog source files'), names the underlying tool ('verible-verilog-lint'), and specifies the output ('structured line, column, severity, and rule diagnostics'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like verilog_compile and verilog_simulate.

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?

The intended use is implied by the verb 'lints' and the file types, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over verilog_compile, verilog_simulate, or verilog_toolchain_info. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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