aidex_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (scanning for .aidex directories) and implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, but lacks details on performance (e.g., speed, memory usage), error handling (e.g., invalid paths), or output format (e.g., list of paths, structured data). The description adds some context but falls short of fully compensating for the absence of annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and follows with usage guidance in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (scanning directories) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and distinguishes from siblings, but could improve by hinting at the output (e.g., 'returns a list of project paths') to compensate for the missing output schema. It's adequate but has a minor gap in output clarity.

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 both parameters (path and max_depth) with their types and descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid paths or implications of depth limits. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description relies on the schema for parameter details.

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 ('Scan a directory tree') and resource ('.aidex directories' or 'projects with AiDex indexes'), distinguishing it from siblings like aidex_query (for querying indexed projects) or aidex_init (for initializing indexes). It explicitly mentions the goal of discovering indexed projects, which is distinct from other tools that manipulate or query existing indexes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to discover which projects are already indexed before using Grep/Glob') and when not to use it ('indexed projects should use aidex_query instead'). It clearly names an alternative tool (aidex_query) and specifies the context (pre-query discovery), leaving no ambiguity about its intended use case.

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