omos_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool returns the full index of every project with file IDs and links, and implies a read-only operation (no side effects). It does not mention performance, caching, or rate limits, but the zero-parameter nature and output schema presence mitigate the need for deeper behavioral detail. The description adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema and missing annotations.

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 at three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose and what is returned. The second sentence provides specific when-to-use guidance. The third sentence prescribes the correct invocation sequence. Every sentence adds distinct value and the critical usage instructions are front-loaded.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool returns (full index of projects and files with IDs and links), when to use it (specific user query scenarios), and how to use it correctly (call first, then filter by project name before drilling into details). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description's guidance is fully self-contained.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, meaning there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description correctly stays silent on parameters (there are none) and instead focuses on what the tool returns and when to use it. A slight deduction because the description could explicitly state 'no arguments required' to confirm no parameters are needed.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource combination: 'Get the full index of the OMOS drive' and immediately specifies the exact content: every project and its files with IDs and links. It thoroughly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'omos_search' by stating it returns the full unfiltered index, while also providing specific use cases where this tool should be used first.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'whenever the user asks about any internal project, BRD, timeline, design, system flow, DB, API, or เอกสารโปรเจค.' It also provides a sequence: 'ALWAYS call this first, then filter by Project Name before drilling into Timeline / BRD / Design.' This effectively differentiates from omos_search (which presumably handles the filtering step) and sets clear expectations for invocation order.

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