axint.compile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral details: 'No files written, no network requests' and describes the error case ('On validation failure, returns diagnostics'). This goes beyond annotations and fully discloses side effects.

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 extremely concise: 3 sentences that front-load the main action, then cover return format, error behavior, and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose 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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns (Swift, diagnostics, optional fragments), no side effects, and how it differs from siblings. The output schema is implied by describing the return value, which is sufficient.

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% with all 5 parameters documented. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides for each parameter. It mentions the return structure but does not elaborate on parameter details, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Compile TypeScript source (defineIntent() call) into native Swift App Intent code.' It uses a specific verb ('Compile') and resource ('TypeScript source into Swift'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `axint.validate` by noting that compile is for full conversion while validate is a cheaper preflight.

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 provides usage guidance: 'Use: use when TypeScript DSL source should become Swift; use validate for cheaper preflight only.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative `axint.validate`, leaving no ambiguity.

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