axint.run

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

Annotations are minimal (all false). The description discloses effects: 'starts child processes, writes .axint/run artifacts, may run xcodebuild/tests, and may call Cloud Check.' This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as side effects and intent. However, it could mention potential project modifications more explicitly.

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 several sentences long and includes a bullet-like structure for 'Use' and 'Effects.' While informative, it could be more concise by combining the purpose and effects. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'Axint' multiple times).

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 (27 parameters, no required params, openWorldHint=true), the description covers high-level behavior and effects. It does not detail return values (output schema exists) or all potential side effects. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 add significant meaning beyond the schema; it lists steps but does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships. Parameters are well-described in the schema, so the description's value is marginal.

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's purpose: 'Run the enforced Axint Apple build loop outside the Xcode UI.' It lists specific actions (validates Swift, runs Cloud Check, executes xcodebuild build/test), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like axint.run.cancel or axint.run.status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other tools like axint.compile or axint.validate.

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' line: 'use when the agent must prove Swift validation, Cloud Check, Xcode build/test, and runtime evidence.' This gives clear guidance on when to use. It lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough to infer alternatives.

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