axint.project.index

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it writes .axint/context (unless dryRun=true) and only reads local project files, providing clarity on side effects beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences covering function, use-case, and effects. Perfectly front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 6 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and side effects. No gaps remain for an AI agent to understand the tool.

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. The description does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, except mentioning dryRun in effects. No additional semantic value added.

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 context pack, enabling reasoning over changed files, SwiftUI surfaces, and interaction risks. It distinguishes from siblings like axint.project.pack and axint.compile by focusing on indexing for multi-file context.

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 'Use:' section advises using before project-aware repair, multi-file SwiftUI work, or interaction-risk analysis. While it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, this guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to decide when to invoke.

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