ingest_current_directory

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Manually trigger indexing.' It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description carries little beyond the action.

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 very short (six words plus deprecation note) but lacks essential details. While not verbose, the brevity results in under-specification, making it less useful despite its concise form.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to explain the tool's effect, parameter usage, or any side effects. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation support, the description is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (force, include_extensions, exclude_extensions). An agent has no guidance on their purpose or valid values beyond what the types imply.

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 triggers indexing manually, and the deprecation note adds context. However, it does not distinguish its scope (current directory) from the replacement 'ingest' tool, which is acceptable for a deprecated 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?

The description explicitly says '[Deprecated: use 'ingest']', which is a direct instruction to avoid this tool and use a specific alternative. This is excellent guidance for an AI agent.

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