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 efficiency benefits ('Much more efficient than multiple Read calls') and the return content ('types and method prototypes'), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics (e.g., timeouts), or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, followed by usage guidance and efficiency note. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains when to use it, and the third justifies why. No wasted words, and structure flows logically from function to application.

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 (batch processing with multiple input options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage context, and efficiency. However, it lacks details on output format (beyond 'types and method prototypes') and error cases, which could be important for a code analysis tool. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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, pattern, files) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'glob pattern or file list' but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., whether pattern and files are mutually exclusive) or provide examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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: 'Get signatures for multiple files at once using glob pattern or file list. Returns types and method prototypes.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('signatures'), and scope ('multiple files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aidex_signature (singular) and aidex_files (likely listing files without signature extraction).

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: 'Use INSTEAD of reading multiple files when exploring codebase structure. Much more efficient than multiple Read calls.' It clearly positions this as a batch alternative to individual file reads, helping the agent choose between this and potential sibling tools like aidex_files or generic file-reading operations.

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