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

Description discloses specific checks performed (triggers, unpinned actions, curl|bash), but no annotations are provided. It does not state whether the tool modifies data, what the output format is, or any safety considerations. With no annotations, more detail is expected.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds meaning.

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?

Tool has no output schema and description does not mention return format or behavior (e.g., error handling, output structure). For a linting tool, users need to know what the output looks like (list of issues, success indicator). Missing essential context.

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?

Only parameter 'text' has no description in schema (0% coverage) and description does not explain what the parameter expects (e.g., file content, path, URL). Description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lints GitHub Actions workflow YAML and specifies what it checks (triggers, unpinned actions, curl|bash). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yaml_validate which only validate YAML syntax.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaml_validate or other linting tools. Does not mention prerequisites or context.

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