Maintain the local index

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two valuable behavioral traits: operations are bounded/explicit and no project code is executed, which meaningfully limits the blast radius of a mutating tool. Parameter descriptions add that compaction removes fragments only after a safe snapshot and prunes old versions, consistent with destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with the annotations; readOnlyHint=false correctly reflects the mutating operations.

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 a single well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the three action verbs and closing with the safety qualifier. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

A fully documented schema, annotations, and an output schema cover most of what an agent needs to choose an operation and supply valid parameters. A minor gap is the absence of prerequisites (e.g., the index must already exist) or an explicit note about what format changes 'migrate' may perform.

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%, with the operation enum and every parameter carrying its own description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 scenario.

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 states a specific resource (local LanceDB index) and three concrete operations (inspect, compact, migrate) with the qualifier that no project code is executed. This clearly separates it from siblings like index_codebase and update_index, which are about building or refreshing code-derived indexes.

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 phrase 'bounded, explicit maintenance operations; no project code is executed' gives an agent clear context to use this tool for index maintenance rather than code indexing or execution. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state strict when-not conditions, so the selection guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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