axint.agent.install

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

Aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true). Adds value by detailing specific files written and stating 'no network,' which goes beyond the structured data. No contradictions 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?

Extremely concise: two paragraphs with no filler. First sentence states purpose, then lists effects, usage, and a summary of effects. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers purpose, effects, and usage. It is nearly complete, though it could optionally mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented through descriptions and enums. The description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score 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 'Install the local Axint multi-agent project brain' and lists specific files written. It distinguishes from sibling tools like axint.agent.advice, axint.agent.claim, and axint.compile by focusing on initial setup and coordination infrastructure.

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?

Provides explicit usage: 'use once per project to create local multi-agent coordination; not needed for one-off compile.' This guides the agent on when and when not to use it, though it does not name specific alternative tools like axint.compile.

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