axint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns ready-to-save source code that compiles with `axint compile`', which provides some behavioral context about output format and compilation compatibility. However, it doesn't address permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if invalid inputs are provided.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and parameters, another describing the output. Every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

For a code generation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive context. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details about error handling, edge cases, or integration with sibling tools. The absence of annotations means more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 by mentioning 'PascalCase name' and listing domain options, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Generate a starter TypeScript intent file using the axint SDK.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('starter TypeScript intent file'), and technology context ('axint SDK'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compile or validation tools.

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 the SDK and compilation, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'axint_template' or 'axint_compile_from_schema'. It provides some guidance through the parameter descriptions but lacks explicit when/when-not directives.

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