chat.start_knowledge_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adequately discloses the key behavior: it's an async job that returns immediately with a job ID. It doesn't describe side effects like rebuilding or persistence, but the schema covers the force parameter, and the core async trait is clearly stated.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome, containing zero waste. It is concise and immediately informative.

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 tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description mentions the return behavior (job ID), which is crucial. It lacks mention of related lifecycle tools, but this is not essential for the start operation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no further parameter nuance, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('Start'), the resource ('repository knowledge indexing'), and the async behavior with immediate job ID return. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_knowledge_index or get_knowledge_index_status.

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 implies when to use this tool (to start indexing) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention when not to use it or reference the related status/cancel tools.

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