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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Effects: read-only inspection; writes no files; no auth or network required,' which goes beyond annotations with useful context about side effects and prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations.

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, followed by usage guidance, parameters, and effects. It is somewhat repetitive ('Use this when' and 'Use: call when' echo each other), but every sentence carries distinct information. Slightly longer than necessary but well-structured.

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 covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and effects. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured. Given the tool's complexity and the rich sibling context, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

Schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning for cwd ('selects the project') and expectedVersion ('turns a runtime mismatch into a blocker'), which is valuable beyond the schema. Format is self-explanatory in schema, so no additional detail needed.

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 opens with 'Audit the current Axint runtime and project wiring' and enumerates specific inspected items (MCP version, paths, config files, Xcode registration). This is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes from siblings like axint.run or axint.status.

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 'Use this when' scenarios are provided (stale process, new project MCP proof), plus a direct alternative comparison: 'use run for build proof.' This gives clear guidance on when to call this tool vs. others.

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