axint.feature

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds context: 'read-only generated output; writes no files and uses no network'. This clarifies non-destructive, network-free behavior and lists output structure, enhancing transparency.

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, consisting of two short paragraphs. The first explains what the tool does and what it returns; the second gives usage guidelines and effects. Every sentence is essential, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 (11 parameters, output schema, nested objects), the description is complete. It covers purpose, output content, usage scope, and effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond summarizing the output and usage. A baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description is not redundant but adds little parameter-specific guidance.

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 generates a scaffolded Apple-native feature package from a description, specifying what it produces (multiple files like Swift source, widgets, etc.). It is specific and distinguishes itself from siblings like axint.scaffold by focusing on Apple-native surfaces and Xcode agent integration.

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 says 'Use: use for new Apple-native surfaces; not for repairing existing app bugs,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also mentions read-only generated output, reinforcing appropriate usage.

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