Index Vault for Semantic Search

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: incremental skipping based on content hash, progress notifications, chunking strategy, embedding provider configuration, and the exact file path of the persisted index. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 at four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place by adding specific details: purpose, incremental behavior, force usage, and progress notifications. No 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?

Given the tool's simple parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers purpose, mechanism (chunking, embedding), incremental behavior, force mode, progress notifications, and index file path. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% for the two parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the use case for `force: true` and the folder restriction, providing context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Build or refresh the embedding index used by `search_semantic` and `find_similar_notes`'. It specifies the verb (build/refresh), the resource (embedding index), and explicitly names the dependent sibling tools, aiding differentiation.

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 explains when to use `force: true` (e.g., after switching models) and describes incremental behavior. It mentions progress notifications. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, though the usage context is clear.

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