codebase_update

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

The description discloses key behaviors: incremental re-indexing of changed files, synchronous execution, and that it updates an existing index. Without annotations, these behavioral details are valuable and adequately communicated.

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 with three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the core function, detailing behavior, and providing usage context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers key aspects: what it does, how it runs, and when it's needed. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., project must already be indexed), but the sibling tools likely cover that context.

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?

Both parameters have complete descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond stating that only changed files are re-indexed, but the schema already defines the parameters clearly.

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 the tool performs an incremental update of the codebase index, re-indexing only changed files. It distinguishes itself from a full re-index and mentions the file watcher as an alternative, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives guidance on when to use the tool (manual incremental update) and notes that it is usually not needed if a file watcher is active, implying a preference for automatic updates. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like codebase_index for full re-indexing.

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