docs_index

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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior, but the description adds useful detail about the returned fields and about dated records being omitted/counted unless include_history is true. The phrase 'only counted' is slightly ambiguous, but the behavioral intent around history is clear.

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 front-loaded with purpose and remains compact, but it is a dense single paragraph with parenthetical lists and semicolons. It is efficient rather than wasteful, though readability could be improved with lighter structure.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides the scope, distinguishes the sibling tool, describes returned entry fields, and explains history behavior. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by naming the dated record categories (.issueops/issues, research, plans, archive, verified-execution, dated adr/ and cautions/ files) affected by include_history, going beyond the schema's generic 'dated history records' wording.

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 verb and resource: it returns a lightweight index of the issueops harness's own docs, enumerates included files, and explicitly says it is not the target repository's index. This distinguishes it from project_docs_route without requiring the schema.

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?

It gives a clear routing rule: use project_docs_route for a project, and use this tool for the harness's own docs. It does not elaborate further on when an agent should prefer this over directly reading specific docs, but the primary alternative and exclusion are explicit.

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