index_now

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the lock-based concurrency model and that a competing run exits immediately, plus the fact that 'full=True' re-embeds everything (a costly, potentially long operation). It omits expected duration, whether the call blocks the caller, and any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the concurrency caveat follows, so the most important information comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation/concurrency behavior is covered. What remains thin for a state-mutating indexer is the absence of any note on typical runtime, resource cost, or whether the caller is blocked while indexing runs.

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 'full' property has no description, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that the default is incremental while 'full=True' re-embeds everything. Minor gap: no detail on cost/runtime tradeoffs of full mode.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run the vault indexer now', with an explicit scope modifier ('incremental' by default). No sibling tool (vault_status, list_notes, semantic_search, etc.) performs indexing, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Implies use when the index needs refreshing, and the 'full=True' note hints at the choice between incremental and full runs. However, it never states when an agent should trigger re-indexing versus relying on existing state, nor any prerequisites before calling.

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