index_operator

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It explains the pipeline stages and the rebuild behavior, implying a mutating operation. It also warns against calling on MCP connect. However, it doesn't explicitly state side effects like overwriting an existing .uo or the nature of the output, which would add more transparency.

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?

Two sentences deliver the purpose, pipeline, preconditions, and alternative routing without fluff. Critical usage constraints are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Given only two required params and no output schema, the description covers the main decision points well: what the tool does, when to call it, and when not to. Minor gaps remain around post-conditions (e.g., what a successful run produces) and whether 'rebuild' is destructive, but these are not critical for a tool with such strong usage guidance.

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 both parameters are already documented with types and descriptions. The description only restates that project and architecture are required, adding no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Build or rebuild the operator CodeMap' with a pipeline (prepare → extract → analyze → commit). It distinguishes itself from sibling update_operator by explicitly stating when to use that alternative instead.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: 'only when the user asks to index or no .uo exists' and 'Do not call on MCP connect.' It also names the alternative (update_operator) for the opposite case, leaving no ambiguity.

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