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

The description discloses reads ('Reads project context, latest run proof, latest repair plan, and active file claims'), side effects ('may refresh advice artifacts'), and constraints ('no network'). Since annotations do not provide read-only or idempotency hints, the description carries the burden and does a solid job, though it stops short of detailing permissions or exact artifact impacts.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses labeled sections ('Use:', 'Inputs:', 'Effects:') to organize additional detail. It is moderately sized with every sentence contributing, though slightly dense due to multiple clauses.

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 description fails to accurately map all 5 parameters, naming nonexistent inputs and omitting others. While an output schema exists and return values are not necessary to explain, the incomplete and misleading parameter references create a significant gap for a tool with optional, diverse parameters.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. However, the description introduces an inaccurate parameter 'question' (schema has 'issue') and misnames 'changedFiles' as 'modifiedFiles', while omitting 'agent' and 'format' entirely. This confusion detracts from what would otherwise be acceptable schema coverage.

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 states the tool's verb and resource: 'Ask the local Axint project brain what this agent should do next.' It specifies the inputs (project context, proof, repair plan, file claims) and output (host-specific guidance). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming 'suggest' and 'repair' as alternatives, making its purpose unique.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when local proof should choose the next move; use suggest for greenfield ideas and repair for known bugs.' This directly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives, meeting the highest bar.

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