axint.agent.advice

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) which gives little info, but the description compensates by stating it reads local context and 'may refresh advice artifacts,' implying non-read-only behavior. This adds necessary behavioral context beyond the 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?

Description is concise (three sentences) with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by 'Use:' and 'Effects:' sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It explains what the tool reads (project context, run proof, etc.) and its effects. For a tool of this complexity, it is sufficiently complete, though it could briefly mention the output schema's role.

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 description coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already informative (e.g., 'File(s) in scope...'). The description provides general context about how parameters are used (e.g., reads project context) but does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already offers. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Ask the local Axint project brain what this agent should do next' and specifies it reads project context and returns host-specific guidance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like axint.agent.claim by focusing on advice generation rather than claiming.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'use when multiple tools or agents need the next safest move from local proof.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. The inclusion of 'Effects' also helps set expectations.

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