SRC (Structured Repo Context)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: that this is a one-time setup operation ('Required once per project'), it creates vector embeddings for many languages, and it has an incremental update alternative. However, it lacks details on performance characteristics like time or resource usage, which could be helpful.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with only three sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's purpose, providing usage guidelines, and explaining follow-up actions. There is no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (indexing a codebase with 4 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job of covering essential context like purpose, usage sequence, and behavioral traits. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., disk usage) or error conditions, which would help an agent use it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'force' or typical 'exclude' patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('index a codebase') and resources ('for semantic code search'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'USE THIS FIRST before search_code' and contrasting with 'update_index for incremental updates.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('USE THIS FIRST before search_code,' 'Required once per project') and when not to ('After initial indexing, use update_index for incremental updates'), clearly differentiating it from alternatives like search_code and update_index.

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