Scan project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states the main action (indexing) and the scope of what is indexed, and the 'Run this first' hint suggests workflow dependency. However, it does not mention that results are cached or whether the operation is non-destructive; the refresh parameter hints at caching, but the description itself omits it.

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 first packs the tool's purpose and scope, the second delivers the key workflow instruction. Information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description, combined with the fully documented schema, covers invocation essentials and gives clear ordering advice. It does not detail the exact output structure, but with no output schema and a clear 'index' scope, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (root, format, refresh), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'Index' with a clear resource 'a codebase' and enumerates the indexed categories (languages, frameworks, databases, external services, features, and headline counts). The broad inventory and 'Run this first' distinguish it from the more focused sibling extraction and report tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Run this first,' which gives clear ordering context relative to sibling tools. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the primacy directive is strong practical guidance for an agent.

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