index_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it rebuilds the index, reports missing parent links, is safe to run repeatedly, and notes that with_embeddings slows down and requires an embedding provider. This is thorough and honest.

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 compact with no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds critical information: purpose, when to use, safety, behavior of the flag, and disambiguation from search. Well-structured and 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?

The description adequately explains the tool's action and usage context. Without an output schema, it might benefit from mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., success status or count of indexed files), but given the sibling tools and the simple boolean input, it is reasonably complete.

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 describes the boolean parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that with_embeddings=true updates embeddings for retrieval/semantic classification and is slower, requiring an external provider—context beyond the schema's brief description.

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 scans the Markdown vault and rebuilds the SQLite index of files, metadata, and graph links. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a search tool, and sibling tools like read_file or write_file serve different purposes, making its role 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after adding, moving, or reorganizing notes outside NOUZ. It also notes that with_embeddings=true is for specific contexts (PRIZMA/SLOI). No explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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