debug_lint_abl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions that Arch 'drives repair loops', but it is unclear whether this tool actually modifies files or triggers repairs, or if it is purely diagnostic. No side effects, permissions, or read-only guarantees are stated. The description should clarify whether this is a read-only check or if it can alter state.

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 sentences, but the first sentence ('Arch validates packages, inspects compiler-visible models, and drives repair loops') is tangential and not directly about this tool's purpose. The core action is in the second sentence, but the front-loading is wasted on context. It is concise overall, but the structure could be improved by leading with the tool's actual function.

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 has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report, errors, a pass/fail status), whether it requires a path or files, or any side effects. Given the tool's complexity (multiple lint categories), an agent would need more context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 input schema already has full coverage (100%) for all three parameters (data, path, files), so the schema adequately describes their semantics. The description adds no further detail about how these parameters are used (e.g., whether path and files are mutually exclusive). Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not provide extra value.

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 verb and resource: 'Run ABL design and repair lint checks', which is clear. It enumerates what the checks cover (empty RESPOND values, finalize steps, undeclared variables, etc.), giving a concrete picture of the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling debug tools like debug_get_errors or debug_diagnose, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific lint tool is preferred.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The phrase 'Run ABL design and repair lint checks' implies a use case, but there is no explicit direction on when an agent should invoke it over other debug or validation tools.

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