index_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is incremental by default and describes the effect of `force: true`. However, it does not mention any potential side effects like blocking or unavailability during rebuild.

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 succinct paragraphs: first states purpose and usage triggers, second explains incremental/force behavior. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, when to use, and parameter effects. Lacks details about return values or success/failure indicators, but given the absence of an output schema, this is not a critical gap. Overall comprehensive for a maintenance tool.

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% and each parameter has a description. The tool description reinforces the meaning of `force` (full rebuild) but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Rebuild or update the code search index,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which focus on searching/analysis) by being an indexing maintenance tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: when search tools return 'Index not found' or 'stale' errors, after git operations, file edits, or stale results. Also differentiates incremental vs full rebuild with the `force` parameter.

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