SRC (Structured Repo Context)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining key behavioral traits: it's fast due to SHA-256 hash detection, it only processes changed files, and it has a dry-run mode for previewing changes. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens to the index during the update process.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states purpose, explains advantage over alternatives, and provides usage tip. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's behavior, speed advantage, and usage patterns. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns or what happens on failure, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of dryRun ('to preview changes first') and implying the tool's incremental nature, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('refresh the search index') and resource ('after code changes'), and distinguishes it from alternatives by mentioning it's faster than re-indexing. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'index_codebase' tool by explaining this is for incremental updates rather than full indexing.

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 ('after code changes'), when not to use it (use this instead of re-indexing), and mentions an alternative approach (dryRun for preview). It also implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'index_codebase' tool by positioning this as the faster, incremental alternative.

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