axint.tokens.ingest

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

The description states 'read-only Swift token output; writes no files and uses no network', which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and adds valuable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and effects. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical 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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input sources, usage, and side effects well. Minor omission: no explanation of the format enum values, but the schema provides that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., example file names for sourcePath). It does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.

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 the tool ingests design tokens from JSON, JS/TS, or CSS and returns a SwiftUI token enum. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform token ingestion.

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 advises using this tool before view/component generation to preserve design systems. While it does not list alternative tools or when not to use it, the guidance is clear and contextually appropriate given the sibling list.

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