index_repository

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it walks a path, processes changed files, updates an index map, and returns a summary, which gives a basic understanding of its operation. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether it overwrites existing entries, removes stale references, or requires a git repository. The description also doesn't mention performance implications or any irreversible actions. While it adds some transparency, it leaves critical behavioral details unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action (walk, hash/parse, update) and the return (summary). Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and directly communicates the core functionality.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the main action and return value, but it lacks crucial contextual details. It does not explain the purpose of the 'force' parameter, nor does it provide any guidance on prerequisites or conditions for safe usage. Without annotations, the description alone does not fully equip the agent to invoke the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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 for parameter explanations. It mentions 'root_path' in the phrase 'Walk root_path', implicitly indicating it is the directory to scan, but it provides no details on format or constraints. The 'force' parameter is entirely absent from the description, leaving its purpose and effect unexplained. Since only one of two parameters is even hinted at, the description adds minimal value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: it walks a root_path, hashes/parses changed files, and updates the .repo-index/index.json map. This is a specific verb+resource (updating an index map) that distinguishes it from siblings like search_files or get_stale_files. It also mentions it returns a summary, further clarifying its purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when you need to refresh or update the repository index, but it does not state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools. The description provides no context about scenarios where this is the appropriate choice, so the agent must infer usage from the name and purpose.

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