axint.project.index

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool writes .axint/context unless dryRun=true, and reads local project files only. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. However, it doesn't clarify overwrite behavior on repeated writes.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for usage and effects. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning its place with concise, actionable 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 complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists) and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage, and effects. It doesn't detail return values, but the output schema presumably covers that. It adequately prepares an agent for invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the dryRun parameter's effect and mentions targetDir defaults, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for other parameters like changedFiles or includeGit.

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 scans a local Apple project and writes a compact .axint/context pack for project-aware reasoning. It specifies the verb 'scan', the resource 'local Apple project', and the output, distinguishing it from siblings like 'axint.compile' or 'axint.project.pack' that serve different purposes.

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 before project-aware repair, multi-file SwiftUI work, or interaction-risk analysis', providing clear contexts for usage. It contrasts with single-file reasoning ('instead of only one source file at a time'), giving implicit alternatives, though it does not directly name sibling tools.

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