Index files and folders

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description goes well beyond them, disclosing content-hash skip semantics on re-run, .gitignore honoring, binary/oversized-file skipping, and language-aware chunking strategy. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a bulk mutation.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the safety and filtering behaviors. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

For a nine-parameter bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers behavior and safety well. The only gap is what the call returns (e.g., counts of indexed/skipped/pruned files), which matters here since no output schema exists to fill that in.

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 every one of the nine parameters is already documented in the schema. The description restates .gitignore honoring but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (index) and resource (files or directories) plus the destination (a vector collection) and outcome (semantic search). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling index_text, which operates on raw text rather than paths.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'into a vector collection for semantic search,' but the description never says when to choose this over index_text or search, nor does it state prerequisites (index must exist, collection must exist). Guidance is present but inferential rather than explicit.

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