index_codebase

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 .py files and extracts specific elements, and mentions the force parameter behavior. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing index), resource usage, or prerequisites (e.g., Python installation, write permissions). Some behavioral details are provided but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences: first states the core action, second details what is parsed, third gives usage guidance for force. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. 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 no output schema, no annotations, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, inputs (path and force), and partial behavior. However, it lacks details about the output (e.g., what is returned or if it is void), potential side effects (e.g., index overwrite), and prerequisites. It is adequate but has gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the force parameter ('re-index even unchanged files') but provides no additional meaning for the required path parameter beyond what the schema's title 'Path' implies. The description adds partial semantic value, but the path parameter remains under-documented.

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 Python codebase, parsing .py files to extract functions, classes, imports, and call relationships. It builds a semantic graph for querying, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_code or dependency_tree that focus on querying or specific relations.

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 gives a guideline for the force parameter ('Use force=True to re-index even unchanged files'), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., that indexing is a prerequisite for search_code), nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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