index_repository

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate idempotent and non-destructive), the description details the indexing process: parsing files, extracting chunks, generating embeddings, creating wiki markdown. It adds context about no prior indexing needed, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like disk usage or long run times.

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 concise: two sentences explaining purpose and process, a key note about prior indexing, and a clear JSON example. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., success status, index stats, stdout). It also doesn't explain how parameters like generation_mode or skip_wiki affect behavior. This makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.

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 input schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description only adds value with an example using repo_path, which is already the required parameter. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Index a repository and generate wiki documentation.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like analyze_architecture or get_index_status by focusing on the indexing and wiki generation process.

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 states 'No prior indexing required' and provides an example, implying it's the primary tool for initial indexing. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., get_index_status for checking index state) or when not to use it.

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