index_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: every other tool auto-updates the index before answering, and force triggers a full rebuild for corruption. It omits cost/duration, whether the rebuild blocks concurrent tools, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the caveat, with zero filler. The corruption case is placed right where the agent needs it.

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?

No output schema and only two optional params, so the description need not explain returns. It covers purpose, the normal-case discouragement, and the force semantics; the languages parameter is left entirely to the schema but that is acceptable given 100% coverage.

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 coverage is 100% so both parameters are already documented ('Full rebuild', 'Only these languages'). The description still adds value by tying force:true to the specific scenario of a corrupted index, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Force an index run') and immediately scopes it with 'Rarely needed', which separates it from the search/analysis siblings that read the index. It does not name check_index_status explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear when-not-to-use signal ('Rarely needed: every tool updates the index before it answers') and a concrete when-to-use trigger ('force:true rebuilds a corrupted index'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool (check_index_status) for diagnosing index health.

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