index_codebase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits the key facts: that it writes/refreshes an on-disk index, that it can be slow on large workspaces, and how the cache behaves. The caching detail appears only in the schema's 'force' parameter, not in the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating action and benefit. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's side effects and prerequisite role.

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?

For an indexing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it produces but not the state it mutates, the cost of the operation, or its prerequisite relationship to the symbol-retrieval siblings. Adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (force, workspace_path) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what is there, which is the expected baseline.

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 (scan and index) and concrete resources (classes, functions, methods) with scope (workspace) and a payoff (sub-millisecond symbol search). It is distinguishable from the read-only siblings (find_symbol, get_outline) as the index-building prerequisite, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the setup step that makes symbol search fast. There is no statement of when to call it (first run, after edits), when not to call it, or how it relates to find_symbol/get_outline.

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