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

No annotations are provided, so the description correctly carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals substantial non-obvious behavior: file type filtering, chunking into semantic memories with embeddings, incremental indexing by mtime on the second run, and force semantics. The mtime incremental behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent can't infer from the schema. It stops short of stating side effects (whether re-indexing replaces or duplicates existing memories), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, scan scope, process, incremental behavior, Args, and Returns. The content is front-loaded with the core purpose. The file type list is somewhat long but earns its place since it defines scan scope precisely; no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a tool with 2 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essentials: input semantics, behavior, and a Returns note ('Estadísticas de la indexación'). No annotations exist, so it also carries safety disclosure for a mutation-style tool, which it does adequately by describing what gets stored. The lack of sibling differentiation and undocumented re-index side effects are the only notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates: it explains project_path is an absolute path that falls back to the current directory when empty, and clarifies force re-indexes everything regardless of changes. Both parameters gain real meaning beyond the bare type/default declarations in the input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Indexa archivos de código fuente de un proyecto en Hipocampo (RAG)'. It further enumerates the exact file types scanned (PHP, JS, TS, Python, SQL, HTML, CSS, JSON, YAML), distinguishing it clearly from siblings like search_hipocampo, watch_hipocampo, and reindex_now without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Usage context is implied through the behavioral details — initial indexing, incremental mtime-based re-runs, and force re-indexing — but no alternative tools are ever named. With 30+ siblings including reindex_now, an explicit 'use X instead when...' note would materially help routing; its absence leaves the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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