project_index_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes the index is 'cached,' implying results may not be live, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-mutating, nor does it mention potential side effects or data freshness issues. The description adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and a clear object. Every word contributes to illustrating the tool's function and usage context. It is appropriately sized, with no redundant phrases or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining return values or execution behavior. It covers purpose and when to use, but fails to indicate what results look like (e.g., list of paths, JSON objects) or any limitations of the cached index. This gap in the absence of an output schema makes the description incomplete for effective invocation.

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 all 5 parameters. The description mentions types of content to search (assets, Blueprints, dependencies, patterns), which loosely maps to the 'category' enum but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It neither explains parameter nuances nor provides examples, so it converges to the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 function: 'Search the cached project intelligence index.' It specifies the resource (cached project intelligence index) and the purpose (finding assets, Blueprint structures, dependencies, patterns). The qualifier 'cached' distinguishes it from build/rebuild tools like project_index_rebuild, making the 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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this before editing to find existing assets, Blueprint structures, dependencies, and patterns.' This explicitly recommends using the tool in a specific workflow. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but offers clear contextual guidance.

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