content_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the scan is 'bounded' and 'reports gaps, not false completeness', which warns the agent about limitations and output expectations. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. It adds some value but not comprehensive transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a concise behavioral caveat. Each sentence adds meaningful information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits any parameter semantics, return value expectations, or interaction with registered libraries. The agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation based on this description alone.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (root_ids, max_files, max_seconds). The agent is left without any explanation of what these parameters mean or how to use them, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Index instrument patches') and the scope ('INSIDE registered libraries'), listing relevant file extensions. It distinguishes from generic indexing tools by specifying 'instrument patches' and 'registered libraries', but does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies usage context: 'registered libraries' tells the agent this requires prior registration, and 'bounded scan' suggests a quick, limited operation. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like catalog_index or effect_index, nor does it provide exclusions. The guidance is present but only implicit.

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