aidex_viewer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it launches a local HTTP server with WebSocket for live updates, enables interactive clicking to view file signatures, and implies it's a long-running process (with open/close actions). However, it doesn't cover error handling, performance implications, or security considerations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action. Each sentence adds value: first states the purpose, second details functionality, third explains the technical implementation. Minor redundancy exists ('interactive' and 'clickable nodes').

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 adequately covers the tool's interactive, browser-based nature but lacks details on return values (e.g., server status), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for robust 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's documentation of 'path' and 'action' parameters. It implies the tool operates on a project with .aidex directory but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or defaults.

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 with specific verbs ('Open an interactive project tree viewer in the browser') and resources ('indexed file structure'), distinguishing it from siblings like aidex_tree (likely static) or aidex_files (likely list-based). It specifies the interactive nature and browser-based visualization.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aidex_tree or aidex_files is provided. The description implies usage for interactive exploration but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires .aidex directory) or exclusions (e.g., not for batch processing).

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