axint.doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces these and adds context: 'writes no files; no auth or network required.' This extra detail goes beyond annotations, providing a fuller behavioral picture without contradiction.

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 compact yet comprehensive: two sentences define purpose and usage. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Audit' and avoids redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, existing output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it inspects, when to use, and effects. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for parameters with descriptions for cwd, expectedVersion, and format. The description adds value by explaining what the tool checks (e.g., 'running MCP version, expected version, Node/npm/npx paths, project .mcp.json...'), which enriches the semantic understanding beyond parameter names and types.

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 uses a strong verb 'Audit' and specifies the exact resources inspected: MCP version, paths, files, and Xcode registration. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like axint.activate (activation) or axint.compile (compilation) by focusing on diagnostic inspection.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use when MCP wiring, package paths, Xcode setup, or project memory may be stale.' It also clarifies it is read-only and requires no auth/network, helping the agent decide when not to use it. The description could be improved by naming alternative tools for write operations.

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