index_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal meaningful behavior: diff reporting, force re-indexing behavior, and the timeout risk addressed by async_index. However, it does not mention side effects on the existing index, permissions needed, or whether indexing is safe/reversible, leaving the operational impact partially undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes return categories, and the next two sentences flag the most important optional behaviors. Every sentence provides useful information with no 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 do not need full description, and the description does summarize output categories. But with no annotations and no schema-level parameter docs, the description leaves key call semantics unexplained, especially limit, pattern, recursive, and how dir defaults to '.'. For a six-parameter tool, this is not complete enough.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains force and async_index; dir, limit, pattern, and recursive are left to bare titles and defaults. This is insufficient for a tool with six parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Index supported files in a directory with diff reporting.' It also clarifies what the operation returns (new/changed/unchanged/failed files), which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinct from sibling index_document by directory vs document scope.

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 gives useful conditional guidance for force and async_index, but does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like index_document, search_documents, or get_index_status. Usage context is mostly implied by the tool's purpose rather than explicitly stated.

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