notify_file_changed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds the useful consequence that the index and search will pick up the new content and that the call is redundant under a file watcher, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing paths, idempotency, or whether unchanged files are re-indexed.

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 put the effect first and the redundancy caveat second, then a minimal Args block. Nearly every line earns its place; the watcher sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased but carries genuine routing 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the primary path argument adequately, but leaves the unexplained `max_tokens` parameter and the behavior on invalid paths unaddressed. It is viable but not complete for an agent to call confidently in all cases.

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 only 33% — only `workspace` is documented in the schema. The Args block usefully clarifies `files` as relative-or-absolute paths, but `max_tokens` (a non-obvious budget parameter with a 512–32000 range) is left entirely unexplained in both schema and 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 gives a specific verb and object ("Tell the server which files changed") and states the downstream effect (index and search read new content), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, though the notifier role is distinct enough from the analysis siblings that mis-selection is unlikely.

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?

"A server that watches the project finds edits without this call" supplies an explicit when-not-to-use condition, which is real routing guidance. It lacks an equally explicit when-to-use trigger (e.g. "call after writing or editing files"), leaving the positive case implied by the first sentence.

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