index_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals it 'builds/refreshes' (mutation) and returns counts, but does not mention idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or whether it overwrites existing state. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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 very short (two sentences) but omits critical details. While it is concise, it sacrifices completeness. A good balance would include parameter semantics and usage guidance.

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 the tool has one parameter (0% coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'cross-stack index' means, what 'counts' refer to, or how 'paths' affect behavior. The agent lacks necessary context to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The tool description does not explain the 'paths' parameter (e.g., what paths? files, directories? required? file types?). The agent cannot infer correct usage from the given information.

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 uses specific verbs 'Build/refresh' and identifies the resource 'cross-stack index' and output 'Returns counts'. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like 'find_symbol' and 'analyze_impact' 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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