index_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core action and technology, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing index data), prerequisites (e.g., Milvus availability), or the nature of the indexing process (e.g., incremental vs. full reindex). The schema hints at force_reindex, but the description adds little behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No words are wasted, and it is appropriately sized for its minimal scope.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent. It does not explain return values, preconditions, or the effects of indexing. While it identifies the core action, significant contextual information is missing for safe and effective invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about how directory, recursive, force_reindex, or current_working_directory behave beyond their existing schema definitions.

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 ('Index'), the target resource ('Markdown files'), and the purpose ('for semantic search using Milvus'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_documents and clear_index.

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 implies usage as a preparatory step for semantic search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The purpose 'for semantic search' gives some contextual hint, but no direct guidance is offered.

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