axint.schema.compile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool performs read-only Swift generation, writes no files, and uses no network, which aligns with and expands on the annotations. It also mentions token efficiency, but does not contradict 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 compact (4-5 sentences) with front-loaded purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence serves a function: purpose, capability, token efficiency, when to use, and effects. No superfluous content.

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 (18 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description provides a clear high-level overview and differentiators. The schema handles parameter details, and the output schema covers return values. However, the description could briefly mention that it generates Swift code structs, but the schema already implies that. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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% (all parameters have detailed descriptions). The description adds only high-level context about the 'type' parameter, which is already well-documented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 that the tool compiles a minimal JSON schema directly to Swift, bypassing the TypeScript DSL. It lists supported entities (intents, views, components, widgets, apps) via the 'type' parameter, and distinguishes from sibling tool axint.compile by emphasizing token-light generation.

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 explicitly says 'Use: use for token-light JSON-to-Swift generation; use compile for full TypeScript DSL control,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling axint.compile.

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