Index All

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

The annotations already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description confirms those traits with 'safe to run repeatedly.' It adds new behavioral details such as reporting missing parent links and the slower, provider-dependent embedding behavior when with_embeddings is true.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, when to use it, and important behavioral caveats. The main purpose is front-loaded before secondary details.

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 tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description covers invocation triggers, safety, side effects, and output hints like missing parent links. It does not describe the full return format, but that is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 schema already documents with_embeddings well, so the description's added operational context — slower execution, provider requirement, and effect on retrieval/semantic classification — goes beyond the schema. It clarifies tradeoffs but not every environment-specific detail.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: scanning the Markdown vault and rebuilding the local SQLite index of files, metadata, and graph links. It also explicitly disambiguates from siblings by stating it indexes data and is not a search tool.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger, 'Use this after adding, moving, or reorganizing notes outside NOUZ,' and a clear exclusion: this tool is not for searching. This tells an agent when to invoke it and when to look elsewhere.

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