harpyja_index

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that ripgrep is not required, which is a minor benefit. It does not disclose whether the operation is safe, destructive, idempotent, or what side effects (e.g., overwriting files) occur. The refresh parameter is mentioned but not explained in terms of behavior.

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 very short—one sentence. It front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff, but the extreme brevity borders on under-specification. Still, it is appropriately concise for the limited content.

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 tool has an output schema and two parameters, the description needs to provide context on the index/manifest concept, prerequisites (e.g., repo_path validity), and when refreshing is needed. It lacks this context. The sibling tool names (locate, read) hint at a search context, but the description does not connect them.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It fails to mention either 'repo_path' or 'refresh'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states 'Build/refresh the manifest for a repo', which clearly identifies the action (build/refresh) and the target (manifest for a repo). The sibling tools are locate and read, which are different operations, so the purpose is distinct. However, the phrase 'Build/refresh' is somewhat ambiguous—it could imply two modes or a combined action, but overall it is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The line 'No ripgrep required' hints at a lightweight alternative but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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