index

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

It discloses write behavior beyond the annotations: markdown files are created if missing, existing lists are rebuilt, and apply=False shows the diff (a dry-run preview). That is consistent with the idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations rather than contradicting them. It omits what the diff output looks like and how the bundle param scopes the operation.

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 verb and resource come first, but the prose is packed with section cross-references ('§8', '§8 progressive disclosure') that mean nothing to an agent and interrupt otherwise-dense sentences. The parameter behavior is bolted onto the narrative rather than separated, making it harder to scan.

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?

With no output schema, an agent still lacks a picture of what the tool returns (the diff format, a list of files touched) and of the unexplained bundle parameter. The annotations plus description do cover write idempotency and creation semantics, so it is workable but incomplete for a mutation tool with three optional parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain two of three: dirs=true gives every directory an index.md, and apply=False renders a diff. The bundle parameter is never mentioned, so a third of the surface is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it rebuilds generated index.md lists from frontmatter, covering the bundle-root index and any index that already holds a list, plus knowledgebase-root and per-directory variants. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as list, fix, or lint. It loses a point only because it never names a sibling or scope boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: you run it to regenerate synthesized indexes, with dirs=true for the progressive-disclosure per-directory variant. The description also signals 'added if missing' versus 'already has a list', which hints at when it writes versus skips. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance against fix, init, or record, and no prerequisites stated.

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