assembly_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behaviors: already-indexed items are skipped (idempotent), force re-indexes, and the meetings range is capped at 62 days — the latter is not in the schema. It omits permissions/auth and any return details.

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?

Front-loads the overall purpose, then packs each action into a compact clause with no wasted prose. Dense but well-organized around the action enum.

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 7-param, multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, it explains each action and its scoping constraints (62-day cap, skip/force, default today). Slightly incomplete on what status returns in structured terms, but overall adequate.

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 a baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces which params map to which action (meetings dates, captions date/xcode, committee name), but adds little syntax or default meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource (manage the local search index) and enumerates three distinct actions (status, meetings, captions) with what each does. It is clearly a management/indexing tool, distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like assembly_search.

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?

Each action's role is explained and it notes that other tools (meeting minutes, captions, reports) already auto-index, which signals when manual indexing is/isn't needed. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with assembly_search or stating when to prefer manual over automatic.

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