index_repository_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real trait beyond the schema: default behavior is incremental, and force=true changes it, plus the tool both creates and refreshes the graph. However it omits cost/duration, whether the operation blocks, and any permission or destructive-rebuild warnings.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the key modifier front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and there is zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter operation. Still, with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on when indexing is warranted versus simply reading graph_status.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of meaning for force. "unless force=true" conveys that force triggers non-incremental behavior, which is useful, but it never states plainly what force does (full re-index) or its interaction with existing graph state.

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 pair (index/refresh) and resource (repository graph), which is clearly distinct from siblings like query_graph, graph_status, or detect_changes_tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

"Incremental unless force=true" implies the default usage pattern and when to flip to a full rebuild, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as graph_status or detect_changes_tool, and no prerequisites are stated.

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