index_project_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Re-index...' without explaining whether the operation is destructive, whether it overwrites existing data, or what the impact is on the vector store. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single two-sentence paragraph that is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second gives usage triggers. No unnecessary words, and each sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and usage triggers. However, it lacks details about the parameter and the effect on the vector store, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

The only parameter is project_path, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention project_path or provide any additional meaning beyond its name. It relies on the parameter name being self-explanatory, but adds no context about format or restrictions.

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 action: 'Re-index the .context/ directory into the vector store.' It also provides context on when to run it, which helps understand its purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_project_context, but the unique action 're-index' sets it apart.

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 gives clear triggers for use: 'after updating project.md, adding ADRs, or refreshing BUNDLE.md.' This provides good guidance on when to use the tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, but the given context is sufficient for most cases.

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