docs_index_folder

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: accepted extensions (.md/.mdx/.rst/.txt), automatic skipping of dependency/VCS/build folders, and a hard cap of 2000 files. What it omits is what happens on re-index of an already-indexed path or how errors surface.

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 core constraints (file types, skipped folders, 2000-file cap) are front-loaded in the first paragraph after the summary line. It is somewhat padded by duplicated multilingual keyword lines at the top and bottom, which repeat the same intent rather than adding information.

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?

For a two-parameter indexing tool with no output schema, the description supplies inputs, indexing scope, limits, and the returned object shape ({id, name, status, entry_count, note, hint}). Nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it states that path must be an absolute path to the folder and that name is a display/filter label defaulting to the folder name. Both parameters gain meaning the bare schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (index a folder of Markdown docs) and explicitly ties it to the downstream consumers docs_search and docs_read, which separates it from those siblings. An agent can tell it builds a searchable index rather than performing a search.

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 phrase 'so docs_search and docs_read can use it' gives clear context for when this tool is needed, plus example sources (a project's docs/ folder, a cloned docs repo). No explicit when-not or exclusion guidance is offered, so it falls short of a 5.

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