axint.feature

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, stating 'read-only generated output; writes no files and uses no network.' This reinforces the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations while providing specific details about network usage. No 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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and consists of three focused sentences covering purpose, usage, and effects. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of 11 parameters (1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers core aspects: output details, usage boundaries, and safety behavior. It delegates parameter specifics to the schema and output structure to the output schema, making it complete for an agent's decision-making.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema's content, only providing high-level context about the overall feature generation. This does not significantly enhance parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a scaffolded Apple-native feature package from a description, specifying the output as multiple files. It distinguishes from repairing bugs but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'axint.scaffold', which may overlap. Thus, while specific and actionable, it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 for new Apple-native surfaces; not for repairing existing app bugs.' This clearly indicates when to use and when not, with an alternative use case (repair) identified. No additional context needed.

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