index_changed_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key non-obvious trait: the default is non-blocking with embedding offloaded to a daemon thread, and how to poll completion. It does not cover concurrency behavior (what happens if indexing is already running), failure modes, or what state is written.

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-loaded with the purpose and the default mode in the opening two sentences; the Args block earns its space. The phrase '(old behaviour)' is extraneous padding and the 'Returns' line adds little, but overall it is tight for a one-parameter tool.

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?

A one-parameter tool with an output schema, and the description covers both the operating mode and how to monitor progress via a sibling. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on whether concurrent runs are safe would round it out.

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 single parameter has a bare boolean with a default, so the description does all the work. The Args block explains exactly what True/False mean behaviorally (returns immediately vs. blocks until complete), enabling correct invocation without guessing.

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?

First sentence states a specific verb (indexes) with a precise scope (only changed files since last indexing), which distinguishes it from a full index_codebase sibling in substance. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 incremental framing implies when to reach for it, and calling index_changed_files when a full reindex is needed is left to inference. It does route the agent to get_index_progress for monitoring, but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative for a full index.

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