build_course_index

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'write a draft' without specifying if it overwrites existing files, whether it requires network access, or any side effects. The 'force' parameter hints at regeneration, but the description does not clarify the overall behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices clarity due to possible typos and lack of structure, making it somewhat cryptic for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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 writes files (a significant action) and has no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the format or content of the generated files, any required filesystem state, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it does not elaborate on 'weak_zones' or 'project_root' behavior. Hence, it neither improves nor worsens understanding.

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 it inventories converted markdown files and writes draft index files, giving a verb and resource. However, the phrasing 'converted/ markdown files' is unclear (likely a typo), and it does not clearly distinguish from sibling 'save_course_index' which might perform a similar but distinct action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_course_index' or other siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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