AiDex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (project summary with specific elements and summary.md content), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and an additional feature. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating primary and secondary functions.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on behavioral aspects 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Path to project with .aidex directory.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 project summary including auto-detected entry points, main types, and languages.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('project summary') with details about what the summary includes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'aidex_describe' or 'aidex_status', which might also provide project information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it 'returns content from summary.md if it exists,' which hints at a specific use case, but doesn't clarify when to choose this over other tools like 'aidex_describe' or 'aidex_status' for project overviews. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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