telys_build_ivf

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses failure behavior (fails on missing collection), the optional faiss dependency with the exact fix command, and the threshold behavior (partitions below min_rows stay exact). Idempotent and non-destructive hints already cover safety, so this extra context adds real value.

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 dense but organized: purpose first, then when-to-run, then parameters, then failure and dependency notes. Every sentence earns its place; only minor redundancy exists because 'small partitions already use exact scans' and 'partitions below this stay exact' repeat the same idea.

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 build tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to run it, all three parameters, a failure mode, and a dependency install path. It doesn't describe the return value, but that is less critical for an index-build command, and annotation hints already cover safety.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: min_rows is given a default and below-threshold behavior, target_recall is tied to the recall floor, and collection is marked required. It could add value ranges or type constraints, but the core semantics are present.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair, 'Build per-partition IVF indexes,' and adds a concrete outcome ('calibrate nprobe to a recall floor'). It also scopes the tool to large partitions and notes exact scans for small partitions, which distinguishes it from sibling index tools like telys_build_lexical.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: 'Run once a partition grows large,' and an explicit exclusion threshold through min_rows with partitions below staying exact. It doesn't name alternative tools such as telys_build_lexical or telys_tune, but the when-to-run guidance is unambiguous.

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