axint.repair

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., but the description adds context by stating 'Effects: writes .axint/repair and privacy-safe .axint/feedback artifacts; reads local project files.' It also mentions running Cloud Check and ranking files, which goes beyond structured annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is composed of a clear lead sentence, a brief procedural overview, and two labeled sections ('Use:' and 'Effects:'). It is concise at approximately 100 words, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, though the initial step list could be slightly tighter.

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?

The description covers the main processing steps, effects, and usage guidance. With 17 parameters (only 1 required) and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It does not specify return values, but the output schema fills that gap.

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 all 17 parameters. The description adds some context for certain parameters (e.g., 'agent' adapts the repair plan), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Plan a project-aware Apple repair for existing apps', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It further details the process (indexes, classifies, runs Cloud Check, ranks files) and explicitly distinguishes from greenfield generation, making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 includes a 'Use:' section that explicitly states when to use ('existing app bugs with logs, UI symptoms, or runtime evidence') and when not to use ('not for greenfield generation'). This directly guides the agent on appropriate contexts and implicitly suggests alternatives among sibling tools.

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