db_assertion_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (index) without indicating whether it is read-only, modifies data, or has side effects. The agent cannot determine if the tool is safe to invoke.

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, which is short but lacks depth. It is not wasteful, but it does not earn its place by providing essential context beyond the name. A slightly longer description could be more helpful.

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 has three parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the nature of the output (e.g., a mapping, a list) or how the parameters interact. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining how the query filter works or how limit affects results.

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 the tool indexes DB-related assertions across feature files, which provides a clear verb and resource. However, 'index' is somewhat vague (could imply creating an index vs. searching) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'assertion_map' or 'search_db_usage'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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