LINTLANG v0.8.2
  examples/agent.yaml
  ──────────────────────────────────────────────────

  ❌ FAIL — 1 CRITICAL, 1 HIGH, 1 MEDIUM
  Inspected: 1 tool (0 described, 1 with a schema), system prompt
  Confidence: HIGH (90% coverage proxy; high ≥90%)
    Primary driver: No user-input or untrusted-input boundary language was detected. (-10 percentage points)
      If these instructions govern user-controlled content, describe that boundary explicitly; otherwise no change is implied.
    HERM confidence is a heuristic coverage label, not a statistical probability, finding-certainty estimate, or structural PASS/REVIEW/FAIL verdict.

  H1: Tool Description Ambiguity

    !! [CRITICAL] H1.1 examples/agent.yaml:4  tool:process_ticket
      Tool 'process_ticket' has no description.
      → Add a specific, disambiguating description that explains WHEN to use this tool, not just WHAT it does.

  H2: Missing Constraint Scaffolding

    ! [HIGH] examples/agent.yaml:1  system_prompt
      System prompt defines tools but contains no termination conditions, retry budgets, or progress checks.
      → Add explicit constraints: 'Retry limit: 2 attempts. If no progress after 2 attempts, stop and report the issue.'

  H3: Schema-Intent Mismatch

    ~ [MEDIUM] examples/agent.yaml:9  tool:process_ticket.parameters.ticket_id
      Parameter 'ticket_id' in tool 'process_ticket' has no description.
      → Add a description explaining what this parameter means semantically, not just its type.

  ──────────────────────────────────────────────────
  lintlang v0.8.2 | H1-H7 structural analysis | Zero LLM calls