index_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavior like respecting .gitignore and using AST-based decomposition, but it does not explain side effects, persistence, repeatability, or whether the operation modifies files.

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 two concise sentences. The first delivers the core action and scope; the second handles the parameter. There is no redundant text or unnecessary detail.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The description covers the input, behavior (.gitignore, AST), and destination ('code_semantics'), which is largely complete for a one-parameter indexing tool, though edge cases and sibling relationships are not discussed.

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 has no property description, but the Args section clearly defines 'path' as 'The absolute or relative path of the directory to index' and notes the default. This provides complete semantic meaning for the single parameter, going well beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('scans') and resource ('directory') while detailing the decomposition into class definitions, methods, and HTML/CSS structures. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'search_context' and 'remember_decision' by describing an indexing operation.

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 implies the tool is for indexing a project to build 'code_semantics', but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus searching or remembering decisions. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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