Index repository

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by explaining coverage reporting (skipped, parse_partial, excluded), best-effort nature of flags, where complete lists reside (logfile, index_status, query_graph), and what counts as a failure vs. by-design exclusion. This adds rich behavioral context that annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint) do not provide.

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 long but every sentence adds value—covering main action, special mode, coverage interpretation, and exclusion semantics. It is organized with clear labels ('COVERAGE:', 'excluded') and front-loads the primary verb. Slightly verbose, but not wasteful given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing what the response contains (skipped/parse_partial lists, logfile path), how to query missed items, and what constitutes deliberate exclusion. It addresses failure modes, best-effort caveats, and cross-project prerequisites, making it complete for a complex indexing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enhances parameter meaning: it explains the cross-repo-intelligence prerequisite for target_projects, clarifies mode behavior beyond enum values, and describes persistence artifact usage. It stops short of defining every param's exact syntax but meaningfully supplements the 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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'Index a repository into the knowledge graph.' It also details a special mode ('cross-repo-intelligence') with its distinct purpose, distinguishing this ingestion tool from query/read siblings like search_graph or index_status.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the cross-repo-intelligence mode (requires target_projects, needs fresh indexes on target projects). It also implies general indexing workflow by describing mode variants and prerequisites, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like detect_changes or check_index_coverage for refresh scenarios.

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