index_repo_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses that indexing makes data available to queries, explains parameter behavior (branch comparison, force re-parse), and describes return values (summary or error). However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or whether re-indexing overwrites data. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 well-structured with explicit sections (overview, effect, args, returns). It is front-loaded with purpose. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and it remains efficient.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input semantics, return structure, and effect on other tools. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., repo must exist on disk) but is otherwise complete for an indexing tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage from context, the description's Args section provides detailed explanations for all 4 parameters: repo_path is absolute path, repo_name is logical name, branch allows side-by-side comparison, force re-parses. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 'Index a source repository into the Orihime knowledge graph' and explains the effect on sibling tools: 'After indexing, all other query tools will reflect the new data.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are query/analysis tools.

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 implies usage before querying, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It gives clear context: using this makes data available to other tools.

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