index_embeddings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Requires embedding provider,' which adds context about dependencies. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether indexing is incremental or full), performance implications, error handling, or what 'enable semantic search' entails operationally. The description is basic but doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 very concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (indexing operation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or what happens after indexing. For a tool that enables a critical feature like semantic search, more context on outcomes or limitations would be beneficial.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'forceReindex.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Index all entities for semantic search.' It specifies the verb ('index') and resource ('entities'), and distinguishes it from semantic search tools like 'semantic_search' by focusing on indexing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other indexing-related tools like 'compress_graph' or 'normalize_observations', which might be considered preparatory steps.

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 context for when to use this tool: 'Call this after adding entities to enable semantic search.' This implies a sequence of operations and a prerequisite (adding entities). However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives, such as whether to use it versus other indexing or search tools in the sibling list.

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