Codebase Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs re-indexing with two modes (full or incremental), which implies a potentially resource-intensive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's destructive to existing data, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 (re-indexing operation with two parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic functionality and mode selection, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('reason' and 'incrementalOnly') with their types and defaults. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'incrementalOnly' and its effect, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for 'reason' or performance implications.

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's purpose: 'Re-index the codebase' with the specific verb 're-index' and resource 'codebase'. It distinguishes between full and incremental modes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_indexing_status' or 'search_codebase'.

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 context on when to use incremental mode ('Use incrementalOnly=true to only process files changed since last index'), which implies usage for faster updates. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_indexing_status' or prerequisites for operation.

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