infosys_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description merely restates it ('this tool changes nothing here'). It adds no detail on what the tool returns, what 'force' or 'max_pages' would cause, or any rate/approval constraints specific to this call.

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?

It is a single run-on sentence stitched together with em-dashes and parentheticals, so the key point is not front-loaded. The content is simultaneously long-winded and under-specifying, which is the opposite of efficient concision.

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 not be explained, but for a tool with a required 'book' parameter plus 'force'/'max_pages' the description omits any account of what the call does or how those parameters behave. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and all three parameters (book, force, max_pages) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions no parameter at all and does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving 'force' and 'max_pages' entirely opaque.

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 never states what infosys_index actually does. It describes the Help Viewer index being built as a whole and asserts the tool 'changes nothing here,' which is closer to a disclaimer than a purpose statement. An agent cannot tell from this text what action calling infosys_index performs, even though the name implies indexing.

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 names kb_rebuild(index='infosys') as the tool that later builds the index and points to kb_status / tc_doctor for state, but it never says when to call infosys_index itself, nor what the alternatives are for the same purpose. Guidance is about neighboring tools, not this one.

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