axint.scaffold

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavioral traits: 'no files are written, no network requests made' and 'On invalid domain values, returns an error string.' This goes beyond annotations, providing concrete side-effect and error behavior.

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 fairly concise and well-structured, with separate sentences for purpose, return value, effects, and usage. However, it could be slightly tightened; the 'Effects:' section partially repeats earlier content. Overall, it communicates efficiently without significant waste.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown in detail but indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return format extensively. It covers the return type ('complete defineIntent() source string') and error case, and states no side effects. It is complete for a simple scaffolding tool, though it omits any prerequisites or permission requirements (likely unnecessary due to annotations).

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'from a name and description' but the schema already defines those parameters thoroughly. The note about 'invalid domain values' gives a hint about domain validation but does not elaborate on other parameters.

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 starter TypeScript intent file from a name and description, returning a complete defineIntent() source string. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, most of which appear to be for different operations (e.g., compile, run, 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 provides explicit guidance: 'use to create a small TypeScript intent starter; use templates for richer examples.' This tells when to use this tool and when to use templates instead, though it does not name specific sibling tools like 'axint.templates.get' or 'axint.templates.list'. Still, the advice is clear.

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