lint_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and never edits files, and enumerates the exact checks performed, providing complete transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and listing actions without any filler. Every sentence contributes value.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (inferred), the description covers the tool's scope well. It mentions all performed checks and the parameter.

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 single parameter 'stale_days' is fully described in the input schema. The tool description already mentions stale_days in context, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly specifies the action: 'Run read-only content health checks' on the 'local knowledge base.' It lists the specific checks (orphan cards, broken wiki-links, stale cards, overlapping titles) and states it never edits files, making the purpose distinct from siblings.

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 description implies usage for health checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_dead_links or scan_stale_knowledge. However, it is clear that this is a composite check tool.

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