aidex_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns the complete project structure with file types and indexing status, and supports filtering by modification time. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid paths, leaving gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 purpose and return value, the second provides specific usage guidance for a parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral context, but doesn't explain the return format structure, error handling, or dependencies on other tools like aidex_init. It's minimally viable but could be more complete given the complexity.

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 by reinforcing the purpose of modified_since ('to find files changed this session') but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('List all files and directories'), the resource ('in the indexed project'), and the scope ('complete project structure'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns file types and indexing status, which is unique among the listed tools like aidex_tree or aidex_scan.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('to find files changed in this session' using modified_since) and implies usage for retrieving project structure with metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings like aidex_tree for different structural views.

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