AiDex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a removal action, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, if it affects other dependencies, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., error handling). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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%, with both parameters ('path' and 'dependency') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'path' and 'dependency' or format examples. 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 action ('Remove') and target ('a linked dependency project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'aidex_remove' or 'aidex_unlink' (if that were a sibling), leaving some ambiguity about its unique role in the toolset.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a dependency must be linked first), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'aidex_remove' or 'aidex_link', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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