axint.validate

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

Description adds 'read-only diagnostics; writes no files and uses no network' beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). This clarifies the non-destructive, isolated nature of the tool.

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 sentences: purpose, pipeline/return format, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with key info, no redundant words.

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 complexity (134 rules, JSON output), the description covers purpose, usage, effects, and output structure. Output schema exists, so return values are partially covered; the description adds enough context for the agent to understand what to expect.

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 single parameter 'source' whose description is thorough. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states it validates TypeScript intent definitions without generating Swift, distinguishing it from sibling like swift.validate. It specifies the full validation pipeline with 134 diagnostic rules, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 (for TypeScript DSL diagnostics before Swift output) and when not to (use swift.validate for existing Swift). This provides 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.