index_repo

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 auto-update background process and that a forced re-scan is normally unnecessary, but says nothing about cost, duration, blocking behavior, idempotency, or required permissions for a potentially expensive 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed immediately by the scoping caveat. No filler; every clause adds usable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a one-parameter, non-required tool the description is nearly complete, missing only cost/latency expectations that would help an agent decide whether to trigger it.

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 must explain the lone parameter, and it does: it distinguishes the default incremental behavior from full=True and states when the full flag is warranted. The default (false) semantics are only implied rather than stated.

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 (re-scan) and resource (repository) with a clear modifier ('force'). It is reasonably distinct from the sibling index_status, which reports rather than rebuilds, but the description never names or contrasts an alternative, so differentiation is inferred.

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 condition for use ('use full=True after changing .gitignore or if results look stale') and an implicit when-not ('the index already auto-updates on file changes'). No sibling tool is named as an alternative, but the routing guidance is clear.

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