axint.compile

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds key behavioral details: no files written, no network requests, returns a string with optional fields, and returns diagnostics on failure. 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?

Description is concise with three main sentences plus a 'Use:' and 'Effects:' section. Each sentence adds value: main action, side effects, failure behavior, guidelines, and effects. No fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers return format. It includes usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter context. Complete for a tool with 5 parameters and good 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 provides context about the output (including infoPlist and entitlements) which relates to emit parameters, but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool compiles TypeScript source into native Swift code, with a specific verb 'compile' and resource 'TypeScript source'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'axint.validate' by noting that validation is a cheaper alternative.

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 states when to use this tool ('use when TypeScript DSL source should become Swift') and when to use the alternative ('use validate for cheaper preflight only'). Also mentions behavior on validation failure.

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