index_codebase

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: incremental indexing by default, fallback to source parsing for Haskell, and optional hie_dir for richer type info. However, it omits performance characteristics, side effects (e.g., state modifications), and error handling.

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 core purpose, and efficiently conveys key details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 100% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and key behaviors. However, it does not mention return values or error scenarios, which would improve completeness.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining incremental indexing (force_full), Haskell-only parameter (hie_dir), and fallback behavior, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 indexes a codebase to build a dependency graph, specifying supported languages (Haskell and ReScript) and incremental indexing behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are query/analysis tools.

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 implies usage for building/updating an index but does not explicitly say when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or error conditions, though the context of sibling tools clarifies its role.

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