axint.validate

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 context: 'Runs the full Axint validation pipeline (134 diagnostic rules)', 'Returns an empty array [] when validation passes', and 'Effects: read-only diagnostics; writes no files and uses no network.' 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 somewhat long but front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Still efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema described in the description (diagnostics array with fields). The description covers purpose, guidelines, behavior, parameter details, and output format. It is fully complete for the agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the 'source' parameter. The description adds meaningful constraints: 'Must be a complete file starting with an axint import, not a code fragment.' This adds value 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 the verb 'validate' and the resource 'TypeScript intent definition', and distinguishes from siblings like swift.validate and axint.compile by specifying it validates TypeScript DSL without generating Swift. It also lists specific checks (PascalCase names, parameter types, etc.).

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use: use for TypeScript DSL diagnostics before Swift output; use swift.validate for existing Swift.' This tells the agent when to use this tool vs the alternative, and the description explains the output (diagnostics array) and when it's empty.

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