marm_graph_index

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals auto-reindexing ('Indexed repos are re-indexed automatically in the background'), the effects of action options, and the possible graph-unavailable error on backend failure. It does not cover permissions or side effects on the repo, but covers the core behaviors well.

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 structured with a summary, parameter list, and return note. It front-loads the main purpose and stays under 200 words, but includes an unnecessary emoji and slightly redundant phrasing. Still, every section earns its place.

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 complexity (4 optional params, multiple actions, auto-reindexing), the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, usage order, and return/error behavior. It lacks concrete examples or response shape, but no output schema exists, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by providing per-parameter explanations: repo_path as index vs list/status, project as status check, mode as depth, and action as explicit enum with inference rules. This adds substantial meaning beyond titles and enums.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Index a code repository into the graph, or check status / list known projects.' It also differentiates itself from sibling graph tools by explicitly stating 'Call this first — all other graph tools need an indexed project,' establishing it as the prerequisite setup tool.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Call this first' and explains when to pass vs omit repo_path and project. It outlines the three main action modes (index, status, list) and the auto-reindexing controls, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other graph operations, relying on the prerequisite statement to imply exclusion.

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