axint.scaffold

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: states return type (complete defineIntent() source string or error string), explicitly says no files written and no network requests, and explains behavior on invalid domain. Annotations are consistent (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).

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?

Description is concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second details return and side effects, third provides usage guidance. 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 4 parameters, presence of output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: creation of intent, return value, error handling, side effects, and usage. It is fully sufficient for correct 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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions (e.g., PascalCase, camelCase hints). It doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description explicitly states it generates a starter TypeScript intent file from name and description, returning a source string. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like axint.run or axint.compile by emphasizing no files are written and no network requests.

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?

Includes explicit 'Use:' section telling when to use this tool (small starter) and when to use alternatives (templates for richer examples). Also clarifies no files written or network used, preventing misuse.

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