aide_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that no path validation is performed, explains behavior when .aide/versions.json is missing, and details all possible brain.status values with their implications. No contradictions exist.

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?

While the description is lengthy, it is well-structured with clear headings, bullet points, and code-style formatting for different statuses. Every sentence adds value, and the organization makes it easy to parse. Could be slightly trimmed but the structure earns a 4.

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?

The description is fully complete for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. It covers both output fields in depth, explains possible values, and provides remediation guidance. No gaps remain.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately notes 'No parameters needed — uses the server's working directory.'

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: 'Boot-time reporter called by the orchestrator at startup.' It specifies that it returns two independent fields, each with distinct roles, and the verb 'reporter' combined with the context differentiates it from sibling tools like aide_brain or aide_init.

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 explains when the tool is used (at startup by the orchestrator) and provides detailed branching logic for the two fields, including remediation steps for various brain statuses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the context makes it clear this is a startup-specific utility.

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