axint.swift.validate

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

Description explicitly confirms read-only nature, no file writes, no network use, aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and adding specific behavioral details not in 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?

Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, examples, usage, and effects. Front-loaded with key action verb 'Validate' and specific rule IDs. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With output schema present, description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter hints, and side effects. All necessary information for agent to decide and invoke is provided.

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?

Input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it validates Swift source against 150 build-time rules (AX700–AX749), specifies exact bug categories (Swift 6 concurrency, Live Activities, missing perform()), and distinguishes from siblings like axint.swift.fix by naming specific use case.

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 states when to use: 'use on generated or edited Swift before build', and recommends pairing with axint.swift.fix for mechanical repairs, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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