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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the automatic-indexing behavior of completed builds, but says nothing about failure semantics, whether re-indexing overwrites prior content, latency/synchronicity, or any permission requirements for a state-mutating operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the concrete purpose is front-loaded before the usage caveat. The second sentence exists to prevent a redundant call and therefore earns its place.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should carry more: it never describes what the caller gets back, whether the operation is synchronous, or what happens when the file-count/size limits are exceeded. It is adequate for choosing the tool but incomplete for invoking it confidently.

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% — path, content, projectId, and the ≤10 files / ≤700KB limits are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Index files into the CIL codebase context for a project") and immediately scopes it to a particular class of files, which no sibling name conveys. It is clearly distinguishable from build_feature and the other build/stream siblings from the description alone.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ("for files Codemind itself did not generate — a manual edit, another tool's output") and an explicit when-not-to-use ("Not needed after a normal build_feature call"). It names the competing tool and the condition (projectId supplied at build time) that makes this tool unnecessary.

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