memorybank_index_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'indexes', implying a write operation, but fails to mention whether it is destructive, requires permissions, or how it affects existing indices. This is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear warning section and bullet-point examples. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly shorter.

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 complexity (indexing code) and lack of an output schema, the description should explain what happens after indexing (e.g., success message, status). It does not describe the return value or error conditions, leaving gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds value by emphasizing the absolute path requirement for the 'path' parameter, but does not enhance other parameters beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it indexes code from a directory for semantic searches. The verb 'index' and resource 'directory' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memorybank_search' (which uses the index) or 'memorybank_read_file'.

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?

The description provides explicit rules about the path being absolute and a directory, with correct and incorrect examples. It advises indexing a directory when targeting a specific file. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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