index_year

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that this mutates the ledger and is a prerequisite for dedup recognition, plus the rerun condition. It does not say whether reruns are idempotent, whether existing entries are overwritten, whether source files are touched, or what happens on partial failure.

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 with no filler; the operative behavior comes first and the run cadence follows. The cadence and rerun condition are packed into one sentence but remain readable.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it does and when to run it, but leaves the agent guessing about idempotency, side effects on files, and the result. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'The year's folders' and 'once per year' imply the parameter selects a fiscal year's folder set, but the expected format (e.g. 2024 vs 24) and scope are never specified.

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 concrete verb and outcome: reads every existing document in the year's folders into the ledger. The phrase 'so later copies are recognised' explains the point of the operation, making the tool's role distinguishable in concept from scan_inbox or file_document, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Explicit cadence guidance: 'Run it once per year (and again after moving files by hand)' tells the agent exactly when this must be invoked. It lacks any when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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