Index Repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions code-aware chunking and skipping vendored dirs, which are useful behaviors, but it does not indicate whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. Given that indexing likely involves writing to storage, more transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It fronts the core action ('Index a code repository') immediately and adds the key differentiators in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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 performs an operation with potential side effects (indexing), the description is too brief. It lacks information about the output or success/failure indicators, prerequisites like repository structure, and any associated side effects (e.g., overwriting existing index). With no output schema, the description should provide more context about what happens after indexing.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The single parameter 'path' is implicitly explained by the tool's purpose: it is the file system path to the repository. However, the description does not specify format (absolute/relative), constraints, or expected content. The added value is marginal but sufficient for a simple parameter.

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 a code repository'. It adds specific details like 'code-aware chunking' and 'vendored dirs skipped', which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like index_documents (likely for other file types) and search (querying). The verb 'index' and resource 'code repository' are specific.

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 implies usage when you need to index a repository with code-aware chunking and skip vendored directories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like index_documents. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use, nor when not to use it.

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