axint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'returns Swift code with token usage stats,' which adds useful output context. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance (e.g., speed or limitations), side effects, or authentication needs. For a compilation tool with complex inputs, this is a moderate gap, but the description does provide some behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 and efficient: it states the core action, key features (bypassing TypeScript, supports intents/views/widgets), input format, and output in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output but lacks details on error cases, examples, or how to interpret the token stats. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively, but the description provides a basic foundation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'minimal JSON' format or how parameters interact). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Compile a minimal JSON schema directly to Swift, bypassing TypeScript.' It specifies the supported targets (intents, views, and widgets), distinguishes the input format ('minimal JSON means ~20 tokens vs hundreds for full TypeScript'), and mentions the output ('Returns Swift code with token usage stats'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'axint_compile' (likely the full version) or 'axint_validate'.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'bypassing TypeScript' and 'minimal JSON,' suggesting this tool is for lightweight compilation compared to alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'axint_compile' or 'axint_scaffold,' nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not direct.

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