build_ai_context_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It hints at efficiency and quality but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. The mention of 'token-efficient' and 'minimize redundant prompts' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with key attributes and avoids unnecessary words, making it highly concise.

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 high complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and usage context, though the output schema may cover return values. For a tool with many parameters and no annotations, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain the purpose of any of the 13 parameters (e.g., sourceDir, baselinePath, dryRun), leaving their semantics undocumented. This fails to add value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Build') and the resource ('context index for legacy projects'), with specific attributes like 'token-efficient' and 'quality-aware'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on indexing rather than analysis, generation, or validation, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides minimal guidance, mentioning 'legacy projects' and 'minimize redundant prompts' as context, but lacks explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'prepare_legacy_project_for_ai' or 'refresh_project_context_docs'. No exclusions or alternatives are specified.

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