AiDex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds some useful context: tasks persist in the AiDex database, completed tasks are preserved as documentation, and it mentions the five action types. However, it lacks critical behavioral details like whether deletions are permanent, what authentication is needed, error handling, or what the tool returns. For a multi-action tool with 11 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, action enumeration, and persistence information. Each sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be more concise. The description is appropriately sized for a multi-action tool and front-loads the essential information about task management.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters, 5 distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns for different actions, error conditions, or how actions differ in their effects. With no output schema and rich parameter schema, the description should provide more context about expected outputs and action-specific behaviors.

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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the five action types but doesn't elaborate on their parameter requirements or interactions. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics.

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 'manages a single task in the project backlog' and enumerates five specific actions (create, read, update, delete, log). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'aidex_tasks' (plural) by focusing on single-task operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other task-related siblings like 'aidex_update' or 'aidex_query'.

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. With 21 sibling tools including 'aidex_tasks', 'aidex_update', and 'aidex_query', there's no indication of when this CRUD-style task manager is appropriate versus batch operations or other task-related tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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