index_repo

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains incremental re-indexing and the force parameter, but does not disclose potential side effects like time consumption or disk usage. Lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with action and purpose. No extra words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Provides enough context for the tool's operation (incremental indexing) but does not relate to siblings (e.g., get_index_status) or clarify that indexing is a prerequisite for review tools. Output schema exists, so return format not needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Explains 'force' parameter but does not describe 'repo_path', 'exclude_globs', or 'include_globs' in the description text, leaving agent to infer from schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the action (index/re-index), the resource (local git repository), and purpose (for convention retrieval). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_index_status or review_file by describing a preparatory indexing step.

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 usage context (before reviews to make conventions available) and describes incremental behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings or when not to use. No alternatives mentioned.

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