index

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses incremental default behavior, live progress reporting, sequential processing for low RAM, and automatic file watching. It could mention error handling or idempotency, but the provided details are good.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose. Each sentence provides essential information about usage, behavior, and automation.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers key aspects: order of use, multi-path support, progress, incremental nature, and auto-watch. It could mention error scenarios or that the tool is non-destructive, but overall it is sufficient for a setup tool.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds behavioral context: paths are processed sequentially to keep RAM low. It also reinforces the comma-separated usage. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool indexes a codebase and is the first step before using other tools, explicitly distinguishing from status/health. It also mentions supporting comma-separated paths, incremental indexing, and auto-watch.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use first on any new or changed codebase, before any other tool' and notes that re-running is rarely needed. However, it does not provide exclusions or when not to use, but the context with sibling tools is clear.

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