Index project

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description clarifies exactly what is affected—the graph is rebuilt—and explicitly states that source projects are never written to. It also adds the cost implication of a rebuild, which is valuable behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, approval, batching/cost, and source safety. The key constraints are front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the critical workflow, safety boundary, and rebuild cost, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, with five undocumented parameters and ambiguity about how to supply a single project versus multiple projects, the agent still has to fill significant gaps before calling 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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It only indirectly covers projects via 'pass every project in one call' and confirmed via 'explicit user approval'; name, path, languages, and the relationship between the top-level fields and the projects array are left unexplained.

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 states a specific action: register projects and rebuild the graph, which clearly distinguishes this from the read-only find/get/list siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with sibling tools, so it stops just short of the top score.

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 description gives concrete operational guidance: only run after explicit user approval, and pass every project in one call because a rebuild costs the whole corpus. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or which sibling to prefer in other situations.

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