aidex_signature

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 mentions that the tool is 'Much faster than Read tool,' which adds useful context about performance. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), output format, or any rate limits or permissions needed, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines without unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it front-loaded and easy to understand quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output format. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what to expect from the tool would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 'file') with descriptions. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 with specific verbs ('Get the signature') and resources ('a single file'), detailing what it extracts: header comments, types, and method prototypes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the 'Read tool' by emphasizing speed and use case for understanding file structure, which helps differentiate it from siblings like aidex_describe or aidex_viewer.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this INSTEAD of reading entire files when you only need to know what methods/classes exist.' It names an alternative ('Read tool') and specifies when to use this tool (for faster understanding of file structure) versus when not to (when full file content is needed), offering clear context for selection among siblings.

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