scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It details the behavior: force-reindex, config merging, file writing, and the dry-run result format. This gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects and outputs.

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 longer but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor trimming could be possible, but it remains clear and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values thoroughly: new config + post-scope stats for normal calls, and a dry-run object with suggested excludes. All edge cases (dry-run, merging) are addressed.

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?

Despite the input schema having 0% description coverage, the description compensates completely. It explains the 'exclude' parameter (drop vendor trees, recommended), 'include' (index only listed dirs), glob syntax, and the default behavior of no arguments triggering a dry run.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Scope which files codegraph indexes for this project, then force-reindex.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'stats', 'pending', and 'hooks' by focusing on scoping and reindexing.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (on a big vendor monorepo), what parameters to pass (exclude vs include), and includes a dry-run feature. It also notes that merging with existing config and writing to a config file occurs.

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