heal_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states that the tool writes only to the index and never to source, and that it re-indexes stale files. This adequately discloses the key behavioral traits, though it could mention side effects like temporary index inconsistency.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential 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?

Covers purpose and write behavior but omits parameter documentation and does not describe return values or error conditions. For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the missing parameter explanation is a notable gap.

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 has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain the 'limit' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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?

Description clearly specifies the verb (re-index, refresh, repair) and resource (stale already-indexed files, FTS), and distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it is a maintenance/repair operation rather than a read or search tool. The phrase 'repair when reads report drift' uniquely identifies the tool's purpose.

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?

Provides explicit usage context ('repair when reads report drift') and a behavioral boundary ('Writes only to the index, never to source'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like index_status or memory_doctor.

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