Index a project

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

Adds behavior beyond annotations: indexing is incremental when an index exists, a file watcher maintains freshness afterward, large repositories take time, and progress is reported. Annotations already cover the mutation/idempotency profile, but the description usefully clarifies runtime behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then immediately explains when to call it and what depends on it. Every sentence adds operational value, including the monorepo path note and watcher behavior, with no filler.

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 annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to decide when to call it and how to pass paths. It also covers incremental behavior, watcher freshness, runtime expectations, and progress reporting.

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%, and the schema already documents both path parameters as absolute and comma-separated. The description repeats the monorepo comma-separated usage but adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: build or refresh the code index for a project. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings such as status, search, find_symbol, graph, map, and analyze by naming them as dependent tools rather than equivalents.

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?

Gives explicit invocation guidance: call once per project when status says indexed is false, and explains that search, find_symbol, graph, map, and analyze all need the index. It also says the file watcher keeps it fresh, so repeat calls are rarely needed.

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