axint.feature

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent with description stating 'read-only generated output; writes no files and uses no network'. Description adds behavioral context about file structure and compile-awareness.

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?

Two sentences, both packed with essential information. First sentence states what it does and output. Second covers usage and effects. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action.

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 11 parameters (with only 1 required), output schema, and nested objects, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the tool's purpose, output format, and safety guarantees. Schema covers parameter details adequately.

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. Description adds value by explaining parameter roles beyond schema, e.g., description as natural language, name as PascalCase and inferred, etc. Provides higher-level understanding.

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?

Clearly states it generates a scaffolded Apple-native feature package, listing specific output files (Swift, widget, Info.plist, entitlements, XCTest). Differentiates from siblings by specifying it's for new surfaces not for bug repairs.

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 says to use for new Apple-native surfaces and not for repairing existing app bugs. Provides context for when to use, though alternative sibling tools are not explicitly named.

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