generate_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Writes and returns' the generated content and limits scanning to immediate children. However, it does not specify whether it overwrites an existing index.md, what happens if no frontmatter exists, or any permission requirements—key behaviors for a write 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action ('Auto-generate an index.md'), and avoids any redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the input scope, and the fact that it writes and returns content. The output schema presumably explains return values, so not detailing them is acceptable. The only minor gap is the overwrite behavior, but overall it is adequately 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?

The sole parameter `path` is fully described in the schema ('Directory path relative to bundle root. Empty = bundle root.'), and the tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating that it is a directory. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Auto-generate an index.md for a directory.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_index and get_index by focusing on generation rather than modification or retrieval. The additional context about scanning one level deep further clarifies its scope.

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 by stating it auto-generates from existing concept frontmatter, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_index. It also lacks exclusions or prerequisite conditions, though the one-level-deep scan hint is a contextual constraint.

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