Index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals incremental behavior, low-memory sequential processing, live progress reporting, and automatic file watching, all beyond what the schema provides. No behavioral aspect is hidden or contradicted.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: prerequisite guidance, multi-folder syntax, memory rationale, incremental/progress behavior, and the watcher note. The critical 'Use first' instruction is front-loaded, and the text is dense without being bloated.

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 description is complete for a setup/indexing tool: it explains prerequisites, invocation timing, performance characteristics, statefulness, and automatic maintenance. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described in prose, and the context signals show a simple 2-parameter interface.

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 applies. The description reinforces that comma-separated paths are supported and adds the sequential-processing context, but it does not significantly expand on the schema's already-clear parameter descriptions. It earns a baseline 3 for not degrading clarity.

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 states a specific purpose: build/refresh an index for a codebase, and explicitly frames it as the first step before almost all other tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that everything except 'status'/'health' requires an index, making its role unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use first on any new or changed codebase, before any other tool.' It also clarifies when not to run it manually by mentioning that a file watcher automatically keeps the index fresh, and identifies the two tools ('status'/'health') that do not require indexing.

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