OKF: Generate index.md

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that it 'writes (or overwrites) the folder's index.md', preserves existing frontmatter, and omits reserved files like index.md and log.md. It also specifies the listing format and that descriptions come from frontmatter, giving a complete picture of the tool's side effects consistent with destructiveHint and idempotentHint.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds precisely targeted details: output format, data source, overwrite behavior, frontmatter preservation, and omitted files. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

With only one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, the description supplies the remaining essential context: what gets overwritten, what is preserved, and what is excluded. The agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter (`folder`) completely, including its meaning and default behavior. The tool description adds context about 'bundle-root' but does not materially expand parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a reserved OKF index.md listing from the table of contents.' It then details the exact output format and source, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_index_status or okf_validate.

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 when to use the tool—when you need to generate or regenerate an OKF index.md—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as write, reindex, or get_index_status. No exclusions or alternate routing are provided, so the usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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