skillNinja_updateIndex

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

The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning GitHub fetching, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or idempotency. It does not describe what happens to the index or any destructive outcomes.

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 with two short sentences (one in English, one in Japanese). It front-loads the action and provides no superfluous information.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at results or side effects. It omits prerequisites (e.g., registered sources) and return value. The tool is simple, so a 3 reflects adequate but incomplete coverage.

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 has no parameters (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter meaning, but the absence of any parameter documentation is acceptable. Baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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 ('Update the skill index') and the scope ('from all registered sources, fetches latest skills from GitHub'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like skillNinja_search or skillNinja_list, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., skillNinja_addSource, skillNinja_install). There is no mention of prerequisites or appropriate contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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