AiDex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what statistics are included, response format, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'AiDex server status and statistics' (what), 'for an indexed project' (scope). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 (status/statistics retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about return values, error handling, or operational constraints. For a status tool that might return structured data, the absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more context about what 'status and statistics' includes.

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 fully documents the single optional parameter. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the parameter's effect on output ('shows server status if not provided'), which provides useful context beyond the schema's technical specification. With only one parameter and high schema coverage, this earns a 4 rather than 5 since the description doesn't add substantial semantic depth.

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 ('Get') and resource ('AiDex server status and statistics'), with specific scope ('for an indexed project'). It distinguishes from siblings like aidex_describe or aidex_summary by focusing on server-level operational data rather than project metadata or content summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 for checking server status on indexed projects, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like aidex_describe (for project metadata) or aidex_summary (for content overview). The parameter description hints at optional behavior ('shows server status if not provided'), which gives some contextual guidance but isn't comprehensive about tool selection.

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