Index workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the operation is idempotent-ish ('build or refresh') and it is workspace-wide, not per-file. However, it says nothing about cost/duration for a potentially long-running whole-workspace index, nor whether it blocks or what the caller should expect afterward.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Every clause adds information (build vs refresh, index type, scope).

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 a zero-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema there is nothing telling the agent how long it runs, whether it is safe to repeat, or what (if anything) it returns. A brief note on duration or the resulting index state would close the gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure and that the scope is fixed to 'all supported source files'.

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 pair (build/refresh) and a concrete resource (the SQLite symbol index), plus scope (all supported source files). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_index_status or clear_index by action, though the description never names an alternative to reinforce that contrast.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the obvious siblings (get_index_status to check state, clear_index to reset). The agent must infer that this is the 'do the indexing' step purely from the name.

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