axint.agent.install

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

The description discloses that the tool writes multiple files (.axint/agent.json, .axint/context/latest.*, .axint/coordination files) and that it makes no network calls. This aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and adds detail beyond structured data.

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 with two sentences plus a 'Use:' and 'Effects:' section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (7 params, output schema exists), the description adequately explains the purpose, effects, and usage. It could mention idempotency and force behavior, but that is partially covered by annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides for each parameter, but the schema itself is well-documented.

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 the files written and the purpose of enabling coordination across multiple AI agents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the exact installation action.

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 provides explicit use guidance: 'use once per project to create local multi-agent coordination; not needed for one-off compile.' This tells the agent when to use and when not, but does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings.

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