index_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool parses code files, extracts authors, and builds relationships, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether indexing is incremental or full rebuild), idempotency, resource usage, or required permissions. Some transparency, but significant gaps remain.

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?

Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for effects), but no wasted words.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks details on return value, success/failure indications, error conditions, and behavior on large repos. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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% with descriptions for both 'path' and 'branch'. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already addresses parameter semantics adequately.

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 indexes a git repository into the knowledge graph, parsing code files and extracting authors and relationships. It specifies the resource (git repository) and action (index), and distinguishes from similar tools like index_directory which indexes generic directories.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like index_directory or search. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., git must be installed) or scenarios where it should be avoided (e.g., large repos with performance concerns).

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