aidex_describe

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 can 'add or update' and specifies the default append behavior via the replace parameter, which is useful. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific file permissions, how it handles errors, if changes are reversible, or what the response looks like (no output schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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: the first states the core action and target, and the second provides usage context with specific examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters via the schema, but fails to address behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or response format. For a tool that modifies files, more context on safety and outcomes would be beneficial.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing some section examples ('purpose, architecture, key concepts, or patterns') that align with the enum, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage context beyond what the schema specifies. 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 action ('Add or update a section') and the target resource ('project summary (summary.md)'), specifying it's for documentation purposes. It distinguishes from siblings like aidex_note or aidex_task by focusing on structured project documentation rather than general notes or task management. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like aidex_update or aidex_summary.

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 implied usage context by listing specific section types ('purpose, architecture, key concepts, or patterns'), suggesting when to use this tool for project documentation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like aidex_note for general notes or aidex_update for other updates, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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