axint.agent.advice

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

The description discloses that it reads project context, run proof, repair plans, and claim files, and may refresh advice artifacts locally. It also states 'no network'. Annotations are uninformative (all false), so the description compensates well, though 'may refresh' is slightly vague.

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 concise at about 3 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and uses clear sections (Use:, Effects:). No unnecessary words.

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?

With 5 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers necessary context: inputs, effects, and usage guidance. It could elaborate on the output format, but the output schema presumably handles that. Overall sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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%, meaning the schema already explains all 5 parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what is in the schema, maintaining a baseline of 3.

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 verb 'ask', the resource 'local Axint project brain', and the outcome 'host-specific guidance'. It differentiates from sibling tools like axint.agent.claim or axint.agent.install by focusing on advice rather than actions.

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 explicitly says 'use when multiple tools or agents need the next safest move from local proof'. This provides clear context. However, it does not include explicit exclusions or when-not scenarios, though the positive guidance is strong.

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