axint.suggest

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds that local mode is read-only and Pro mode may call an endpoint when configured. No contradictions; the description provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 moderately concise with three informative sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and tucks details later. Could be slightly tighter, but avoids wordiness.

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?

Covers return format (ranked list with surfaces, complexity, description), mode side effects, and relationship between domain and description. With an output schema present, return values are well documented. Minor lack of error/edge case discussion is acceptable given the tool's complexity.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters with detailed descriptions. However, the tool description mentions 'prompt' and 'dir' which do not match the schema's parameter names (appDescription, domain, etc.), causing potential confusion and reducing clarity.

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 suggests Apple-native features for an app based on its description. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like registry.search by advising against substitution.

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?

Explicitly says 'use before generation to choose Apple surfaces' and provides guidance that domain is a weak hint. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use it, though the negative guidance is present.

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