aidex_init

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions scanning and building an index, implying a potentially resource-intensive or time-consuming operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, if it overwrites existing indexes, error conditions, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for an initialization tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and elaborating with specific actions in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope ('all source files') and output ('searchable index'), though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning it's typically run once).

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 complexity of an indexing initialization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the index contains (beyond high-level types), how to verify success, error handling, or prerequisites. With many sibling tools, more context on its role in the workflow is needed for adequate 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameters (path, name, exclude). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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: 'Initialize AiDex indexing for a project' with specific actions ('scans all source files and builds a searchable index'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'aidex_query' or 'aidex_status' by focusing on initialization, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'aidex_scan' or 'aidex_update' which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'aidex_scan', 'aidex_update', 'aidex_status'), the description doesn't indicate if this is a one-time setup, required before other operations, or how it relates to similar tools. The user must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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