build_deep_index

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

Discloses that it performs a complete re-index, loads into memory, uses parallel processing, and has a dynamic timeout. However, it does not mention whether existing indices are overwritten or if the operation is destructive. No annotations are present to supplement this.

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 short (3 sentences for main description, 2 bullet for args) and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers the main purpose and parameter details well. Lacks mention of side effects like index overwrite or potential performance impact on the system. Output schema exists so return values are not required.

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?

Both parameters are thoroughly explained beyond the schema. For max_workers, it describes default behavior and performance impact. For timeout, it gives the exact dynamic scaling formula. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the action ('Build the deep index (full symbol extraction)'), the resource ('current project'), and implies it's a full re-index. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'refresh_index' which likely updates an existing index.

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 provides tuning guidance for large codebases but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., refresh_index, search_code_advanced). No explicit conditions for when not to use it.

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