index_docs

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full disclosure duty. It explains indexing creates graph nodes and edges, and supports incremental mode. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive or requires permissions, which is a notable gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with key information front-loaded. No unnecessary words, and each sentence adds value: first states purpose and scope, second adds behavioral detail and output edges.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool produces (graph nodes and edges). It lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, or return values, but with high schema coverage, it is mostly complete for its complexity.

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 reiterates the incremental parameter and embedding option but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Thus, no extra value.

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 explicitly states the tool discovers and indexes markdown documentation files into graph nodes, listing specific file types (README, ADRs, etc.) and the output edges. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_docs or graph_query.

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 mentions incremental mode but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph_rebuild. There is no when-not or comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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