axint.doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds concrete behavioral context: 'read-only inspection; writes no files; no auth or network required.' This aligns with annotations and provides additional transparency beyond the structured fields.

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, using three to four sentences that front-load the purpose, followed by usage and effects. There is no redundant or missing information; 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 presence of an output schema and the tool's diagnostic nature, the description covers all essential aspects: what files/configurations are inspected, when to use it, and effects. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invocation context.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds context about 'expected version' in the audit list, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 it audits the current Axint runtime and project wiring, listing specific files and configurations checked. The verb 'audit' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like axint.status by focusing on wiring and setup diagnostics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'when MCP wiring, package paths, Xcode setup, or project memory may be stale.' It also clarifies that it is read-only and requires no auth or network. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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