AiDex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: notes persist in the AiDex database and are shown when querying the project. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like error handling, permissions needed, or rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a tool that reads/writes data.

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 appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what it does, and the second adds context about persistence and display. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating read vs. write behavior).

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and persistence behavior but lacks details on return values (no output schema), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a read/write tool with database interaction, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the 'note' parameter is optional for reading, but the schema already states 'If omitted, reads the current note.' No additional syntax, format, or constraints are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Read or write a session note for the project.' It specifies the verb (read/write) and resource (session note for project), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning persistence in the AiDex database. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., aidex_task or aidex_summary might also involve project notes).

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 guidelines: 'Use this to leave reminders for the next session' and gives examples like 'Test the glob fix'. It suggests when to use (for session reminders) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., aidex_task for tasks vs. aidex_note for notes). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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