index_folder

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses side effects well: it walks the tree, parses with tree-sitter, stores in SQLite, is safe to re-run, and replaces files idempotently. This gives the agent a clear expectation of write 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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, process, safety, and return value without redundancy or extraneous detail. The structure is clean and directly usable.

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?

The description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns, but 'counts of what was indexed' is slightly vague regarding whether counts refer to files, symbols, imports, or all of these. Still, it is sufficient given the simple interface and sibling tool 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?

Although the schema only states 'Path' as a string, the description adds critical meaning: path is a directory, accepts absolute or relative forms, and scopes indexing to files under it. This fully clarifies the sole parameter.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Index' and clearly identifies the resource: every supported source file under a given path. It is distinct from sibling read/search tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys this tool is for building/refreshing the index, which is implicitly a prerequisite for search-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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