codewiki_request_indexing

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details step-by-step actions (search, click 'Request repository', fill URL, submit, return confirmation) and notes the review process and no guarantee, offering excellent transparency.

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 well-structured with bullet steps and is relatively concise, though the step-by-step list adds some length. It is clear and front-loaded, with each sentence earning 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (indicated) and the description covering return value (confirmation and next-step guidance) and input format behaviors, it is contextually complete for a request submission tool.

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?

Input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: explains format (full URL or shorthand) and auto-resolution with interactive disambiguation, far exceeding schema information.

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 requests indexing of a repository on Google CodeWiki that is not yet available. It specifies the verb 'request indexing' and the resource 'repository', and distinguishes from siblings by referencing the NOT_INDEXED error from list_topics or read_structure.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when codewiki_list_topics or codewiki_read_structure returns a NOT_INDEXED error.' It also mentions the lack of guaranteed timeline, providing clear context for usage.

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