index_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it scans specific file types, creates memory embeddings, and supports incremental updates. It does not detail all side effects like overwriting existing memories, but provides substantial 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 well-structured with a clear intro, incremental behavior note, args, and returns sections. Each sentence provides necessary information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, parameters, and incremental logic. It does not explain potential edge cases like ignored directories or interaction with other Hipocampo tools, but given the output schema exists, the return value is adequately specified.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: project_path defaults to the current directory, and force triggers a full re-index. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 indexes source code files into Hipocampo RAG, specifying file types and the chunking/embedding process. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code or save_hipocampo.

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?

It provides usage context by explaining the incremental mtime-based behavior on second runs and the purpose of the force parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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