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 'diagnostics with error codes and fix suggestions,' which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (validation with diagnostics), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output type but lacks details on error formats, usage prerequisites, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that returns diagnostics, more context on the structure or examples of output would be beneficial to achieve 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'source' well-documented in the schema as 'TypeScript source code containing a defineIntent() call.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Validate a TypeScript intent definition without generating Swift output.' It specifies the action (validate), resource (TypeScript intent definition), and what it doesn't do (generate Swift output). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'axint_compile' or 'axint_compile_from_schema' beyond mentioning the 'without generating Swift output' distinction.

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 through 'without generating Swift output,' suggesting this is for validation-only scenarios versus compilation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'axint_compile' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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