index_local

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

With only readOnlyHint=false provided, the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it explains profiling, statistics computation, SQLite loading, and incremental re-index skipping. It does not state whether re-indexing overwrites an existing dataset, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences with the main action and core behaviors front-loaded. The final sentence repeats the format list from the first sentence, but it adds value by making the rejection of other formats explicit.

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 an operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, constraints, and defaults. The main missing piece is what the tool returns after indexing, but the side-effect-oriented nature of the tool makes this non-critical.

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 individual parameter descriptions already carry the semantic weight. The tool description mostly restates schema facts such as the incremental default and supported formats, adding little genuinely new meaning 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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Index a local data file (CSV, Excel, Parquet, or JSONL)' and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like index_repo. It also names the concrete side effects: profiles columns, detects types, computes stats, and loads into SQLite.

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?

Clearly establishes when the tool applies by listing supported file formats and explicitly stating that any other format is rejected. It also highlights the incremental flag's default behavior, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like summarize_dataset or validate_index.

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