index_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, or that indexing overwrites existing data, despite being a mutation tool. The presence of a 'forceRefresh' parameter hints at cache behavior, but the description omits any implications.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It states the primary use case but does not explain the effect of indexing, the meaning of 'update the index,' or any prerequisites. This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it. The enum values for 'source' are not elaborated in the description, but that's acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 tool's action ('Index documentation from specified sources') and its purpose ('for faster searching'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that are for retrieval/summarization, establishing this as a maintenance 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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'run initially or to update the index.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tool names imply the distinction.

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