Index Codebase Areas

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Upserts' and 'safe to call multiple times', and adds usage context. It does not contradict annotations. However, it omits details like return value or side effects, but the idempotency hint reduces the need for that.

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 concise with three short paragraphs, front-loading the key action. It could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., merging the first two sentences), but it remains focused and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 (no output schema, 2 required params), the description adequately covers what, when, and how to use it. It explains the upsert behavior and the structure of areas, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. A minor gap is lack of mention of response, but not critical.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage at the top level, the description compensates by explaining the areas parameter structure with an example ('src/auth/**') and clarifying that responsibility and dependencies are optional. It also explains the role of workflow_id via 'Upserts by workflow_id + path_pattern'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 registers or updates file area ownership for a workflow, with a specific verb 'register or update' and resource 'file area ownership'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on codebase indexing for workflows and explicitly mentions 'plan mode', which is unique among the provided sibling list.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this during plan mode' and 'safe to call multiple times', providing clear context. However, it does not contrast with alternative tools like cph_context_sync, which might also deal with codebase context, so some ambiguity remains.

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