jambavan_index

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool parses source files, extracts symbols, stores in SQLite, and returns statistics. The 'refresh' and 'incremental' language hints at non-destructive update behavior, but it stops short of explicitly stating that old data is overwritten or deleted.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, method, usage+output. Front-loaded with the action verb, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers input (none), process (tree-sitter, SQLite), usage (once then incremental), and output (statistics). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.

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?

Purpose is explicitly stated: 'Build or refresh the Jambavan codebase index.' The description details the mechanism (tree-sitter AST extractor, SQLite storage) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jambavan_awaken or jambavan_context which likely perform different code analysis tasks.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Run once per project, then incrementally on file changes.' It implies the primary use case and update strategy, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like jambavan_watch.

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