axint.swift.validate

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

The description explicitly states 'Effects: read-only Swift diagnostics; writes no files and uses no network,' which aligns with and adds context to annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). No contradictions.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose, usage, inputs, effects. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only diagnostic purpose and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it validates, when to use, inputs, and side effects. No gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% and the schema clearly describes source and file, the description misleadingly mentions 'projectIndex enables cross-file checks; platform filters rules' which are not present in the input schema. This inaccuracy reduces the helpfulness for the agent.

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 specifies the tool validates Swift source against Axint's Apple-specific build-time rules (AX700–AX749) including Swift 6 concurrency and Live Activities. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning pairing with swift.fix for repairs and contrasting with other tools.

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 clear context for use: 'use on generated or edited Swift before build' and recommends pairing with swift.fix for mechanical repairs. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use the tool, but the guidance is solid.

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