index_codebase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the immediate queue insertion and lack of debounce, but does not mention the behavior of force_reindex (clearing existing index) or whether the operation is asynchronous, non-blocking, or what happens on failure. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation-like tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a key behavioral detail and a pointer to a related tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema and fully described parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core action and progress tracking. However, it doesn't address the force_reindex side effect or explicitly distinguish from start_live_watch, though these are partially covered by the schema and sibling context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions the indexing queue but doesn't explain root_dir defaults, max_files testing intent, or force_reindex semantics. The schema descriptions already cover these fields.

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's verb and resource: 'Index the codebase for semantic search.' It unambiguously distinguishes this from siblings like clear_index, search_code, and start_live_watch, which perform different operations on the codebase.

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 gives clear context on the tool's behavior: it adds files to the indexing queue immediately (no debounce) and directs the user to get_status() for progress. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the use case.

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