AiDex

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 that linking 'enable[s] cross-project queries', which hints at a read-oriented behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this is a mutating operation (likely yes, as it modifies project configuration), any permissions or authentication needs, side effects (e.g., updates to index files), or error conditions. The description is too vague for a tool that likely alters project state.

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 action, the second adds a crucial prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy or fluff. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 (a likely mutating operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'link' does operationally, success/failure responses), doesn't explain the output or side effects, and relies solely on the schema for parameters. For a tool that modifies project dependencies, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 three parameters (path, dependency, name) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'path' and 'dependency' or the implications of the optional 'name'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Link') and resource ('a dependency project') with the purpose 'to enable cross-project queries'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'aidex_unlink' (opposite action) and 'aidex_links' (likely lists links), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'link' entails operationally.

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 by stating 'The dependency must have its own .aidex index', which serves as a prerequisite. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aidex_links' (likely for listing) or 'aidex_unlink' (for removing), nor does it specify scenarios where linking is appropriate versus not. The guidance is limited to a technical requirement.

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