axint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior (compilation) and optional outputs, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the Swift output looks like. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a moderate gap, as it doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by optional features and usage instructions. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second covers optional outputs, and the third specifies how to pass input. There is no wasted text, making it 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?

Given the complexity (compilation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and its inputs, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe the return values more explicitly, leaving room for improvement.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'full TypeScript source code' for the 'source' parameter and hints at the optional outputs for 'emitInfoPlist' and 'emitEntitlements', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Compile'), the resource ('TypeScript intent definition'), and the target format ('native Swift App Intent'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the compilation from TypeScript source code, unlike 'axint_compile_from_schema' which likely uses a schema input, and other siblings like 'axint_list_templates' or 'axint_scaffold' which serve different purposes.

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 when to use this tool: when you have TypeScript source code with a defineIntent() call and need to compile it to Swift. It mentions optional outputs (Info.plist and entitlements fragments), which helps understand its scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'axint_compile_from_schema' for schema-based compilation), leaving some ambiguity.

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