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 adds useful behavioral context by explaining the same-process advantage and cache implications, and distinguishes full vs incremental indexing. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or performance costs of a full reindex.

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 lean and well-structured: a short summary, a rationale sentence, and straightforward Args/Returns sections. The Returns line is vague, but since an output schema exists, this is acceptable and does not bloat the text.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the main behavioral choice (full/incremental), and even gives rationale about process/cache isolation. It lacks explicit guidance about how this tool relates to sibling tools like refresh or clear, but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only parameter: 'full' semantics are described as reindexing the entire vault versus incremental indexing, adding clear meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Indexe les nouvelles notes') and identifies the target resource (the vault via MCP server). It also differentiates from the CLI approach, but does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling tools like refresh or reload, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit usage context: it is preferred over the CLI because it runs in the same process and avoids ChromaDB cache issues. However, it provides no exclusions or comparisons to alternative sibling tools, so guidance is clear but not fully complete.

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