indexar_projeto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals incremental behavior (only changed files are reprocessed), which tells the agent the call is cheap to repeat, but says nothing about what determines 'changed', whether removals are handled, cost/locking, or whether the operation is safe to interrupt.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the incremental qualifier parenthetically scoped. Nothing is wasted, but the extreme brevity leaves no room for the missing parameter and precondition information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the sole required parameter is left undefined and no annotations cover safety or side effects. For an index-mutating tool, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it confidently.

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% and the description never mentions the single required parameter 'pasta'. An agent cannot tell whether it should be the project root, a relative path, or a subfolder, nor what happens when a narrower folder is supplied. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — updating the project's search index — which is unique among the siblings (no other tool touches the index). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent tools like contexto_projeto or ler_relevante, which also read project content, so it falls short of 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The parenthetical about reprocessing only changed files is a behavioral trait, not guidance about when indexing is needed or when it should be avoided.

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