index_project

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

The description discloses the two operational modes and their effects (incremental only re-indexes changed files; full rebuild re-indexes everything). Lacking are potential side effects like temporary unavailability or resource consumption, but it adequately covers the main behavioral traits.

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 structured with a clear purpose, bullet-pointed usage scenarios, and bolded mode headings. It is somewhat verbose but front-loaded and well-organized, earning its length.

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 the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and mode behavior. It is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the force parameter as 'Full rebuild (use if index seems corrupted)' and languages as 'Languages to include (empty = all)'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, though could elaborate on language format.

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 rebuilds or updates the code search index, with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_code (search vs index rebuild) and check_index_status (status check vs rebuild).

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 explicitly lists when to run (after code changes, stale results, empty/error results) and explains the two modes (incremental vs full rebuild) with clear use cases. This provides strong guidance for agent selection.

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