AiDex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns tasks grouped by status and sorted by priority, which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it misses details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are important for a tool with filtering capabilities.

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 in the first sentence, followed by additional context. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying output grouping and usage intent. It's efficient but could be slightly more structured, such as separating filtering details from output format.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the return format (grouped by status, sorted by priority). However, for a tool with 4 parameters and filtering capabilities, it lacks details on response structure, error cases, or example usage, making it adequate but incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning filtering but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or default behaviors beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'list and filter' with the resource 'tasks in the project backlog', providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aidex_task' (singular) or 'aidex_query', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 context with 'Use to get an overview of all open and completed work', suggesting it's for broad task visibility. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'aidex_query' or 'aidex_task', and doesn't specify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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