jambavan_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool builds or refreshes an index, uses tree-sitter, stores data in SQLite, and returns statistics. It could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., overwriting previous index), but overall it provides sufficient 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 three well-structured sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides technical details, usage guidance, and output summary. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works, when to run it, and what it returns. An agent can confidently decide when to invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not mention the 'root' parameter; the schema description covers it. The tool description adds no further semantic value 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 tool's purpose: building or refreshing the Jambavan codebase index by parsing source files with tree-sitter and storing symbols in SQLite. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jambavan_memory_recall or jambavan_diagnostics, which focus on different operations.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Run once per project, then incrementally on file changes.' It also mentions the output (indexing statistics). Although it does not specify when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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