index_facts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect of the force parameter and mentions the return type ('indexing result with counts'), providing useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether indexing is asynchronous or whether it overwrites existing indexes, though force implies reindexing.

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 sentences plus the parameter definition—extremely efficient. The main action and purpose are front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is clear and structured.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, parameter semantics, and return value. It could mention prerequisites or dependencies, and it doesn't explicitly disambiguate from reindex_notes, but the tool name itself provides that distinction. Overall, sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameter. It fully does: 'force: If True, reindex all facts. If False, only index new facts.' This goes beyond the schema's bare boolean type and default.

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?

Clear verb ('Index') and resource ('all facts') with explicit purpose ('for semantic search'). The name and description clearly distinguish this from siblings like reindex_notes (notes vs facts) and search_facts (search vs index).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reindex_notes or search_facts. It doesn't state conditions for use or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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