code_intel_index

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose cost/duration (indexing can be slow), whether it blocks, whether it overwrites existing indexes, or what happens on failure. 'Refresh' hints at mutation but no depth.

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?

Single clear sentence with verb and scope front-loaded, zero waste.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented 'force' parameter, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent guessing about cost, prerequisites, and the effect of force.

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 67%, with index_dir and repo_path already documented in the schema. The 'force' parameter (schema has no description) is undocumented anywhere, and the description doesn't compensate. Baseline 3 given partial coverage.

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 ('Build or refresh') and resource ('semantic and lexical indexes for a local repository'). It's distinct from siblings like code_intel_search, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance on when to run this versus using existing indexes, nor prerequisites like whether search requires prior indexing. Purely descriptive, no when-to-use direction.

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