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 states the tool returns source code, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention error handling, performance, or other traits like rate limits. It adds some context about template ids but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place by adding clarity and context.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter context, but lacks details on return format or error behavior. With no output schema, some additional info on what 'full TypeScript source code' entails could improve completeness.

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 the single parameter 'id' with examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by referencing 'axint_list_templates' for valid ids, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Return the full TypeScript source code') and resource ('bundled reference template by id'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'axint_list_templates' (which discovers ids) and 'axint_compile' (which likely compiles code). It uses precise verbs and resources without tautology.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('by id') and when to use an alternative ('Use `axint_list_templates` to discover valid ids'), offering clear guidance on prerequisites and distinguishing it from sibling tools. This eliminates ambiguity about tool selection.

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