aidex_tree

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 mentions the tool retrieves an 'indexed file tree' and optional filtering, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the tree output takes (e.g., hierarchical list), if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and optional features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by enhancements.

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 (4 parameters, tree structure output) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'indexed file tree' entails, how results are formatted, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the three optional parameters (subdirectory, depth, statistics) but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the indexed file tree' specifies the verb (get) and resource (indexed file tree). It distinguishes from siblings like aidex_files (likely lists files) and aidex_describe (likely describes items) by focusing on the tree structure. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aidex_files or aidex_status. It mentions optional filtering capabilities but doesn't explain scenarios where filtering is needed or when other tools might be more appropriate. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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