codebase_update

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

The description discloses key behavior: it is incremental, only processes changed files, and runs synchronously. It does not explain expected return values, error conditions, or whether it modifies source files, and with no annotations to fill that gap, the behavioral contract remains incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and supporting details following. The phrase 'manual/off snapshot' is a bit opaque, but overall the text is economical and every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a simple tool with fully described parameters, the description gives enough context about purpose and behavior. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, it would be helpful to mention the return type or success/failure indicators to make the tool fully self-contained.

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 (projectPath and extraExtensions) have descriptive schema entries, and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter context, so it stays at the baseline.

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's action: incrementally updating an existing codebase index, and highlights that only changed files are re-indexed. It also gives concrete use cases (refresh a manual/off snapshot or immediate catch-up), which helps distinguish it from a full index build.

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 when to use the tool ('refresh a manual/off snapshot' or 'immediate catch-up needed') and notes that it runs synchronously. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to an alternative tool for full re-indexing, which would be valuable given the large sibling-tool list.

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