index_project

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: each project gets its own private database (isolation), and indexing is incremental with unchanged files skipped. It omits cost/latency expectations for large repositories and what happens on failure or partial indexing, which matters for a no-annotation write-like operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then trigger timing, then the incremental behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers purpose, timing, and the incremental/force interaction adequately. The one gap is return values: with no output schema, the description could say what an index run reports (files indexed vs skipped), leaving the agent guessing about the result shape.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining the incremental default that `force` exists to override. `root` is contextualized as 'one project folder', reinforcing that the tool operates on a single folder per call rather than a tree of repositories.

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 and resource with scope: 'Index or refresh one project folder in its own private database.' The clause 'Call once before searching an unfamiliar repository' positions it relative to the search sibling, so an agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the workflow.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: once before searching an unfamiliar repository, and again after large changes. That is concrete when-to-use guidance tied to observable conditions. It does not state when NOT to call it (e.g. already-fresh index, non-repository folders), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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