index_chains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only vs mutation signal, no scope, no cost. The only hint is the concept of chained outputs/sources, which implies this walks relationships rather than listing flat records, but nothing confirms it is a read operation or what it aggregates.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — a single metaphorical fragment with no front-loaded statement of action or result. Nothing an agent can act on appears first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but an agent still cannot determine what the tool does, whether it is safe, or how to supply db_path. For a provenance/index tool in a family of index_* siblings, this is far short of sufficient.

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% for the single db_path parameter, and the description never mentions it — not what a null value means (default database?), not the expected path form. The description does nothing to compensate for the gap.

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 phrase 'Files intertwined by the protocol: an output that became a source' gestures at provenance/lineage chaining between files, but never states a verb or resource plainly — no 'returns', 'lists', or 'indexes'. It is closer to a riddle than a purpose statement, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like index_history or index_stats.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus index_history, index_stats, or probe_media. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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