ingest_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: skipped directories (vendored/binary/hidden), deterministic IDs enabling idempotency, and that rebuild=True drops stale chunks. This goes well beyond the tool's name.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by concise, high-value behavioral notes. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present and no annotations, the description covers core behavior, idempotency, skip rules, and rebuild side effects. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the root and project parameters, but the overall context is strong.

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 compensate. It adds useful semantics for rebuild ('drops stale chunks') but leaves root and project unexplained. With three parameters, covering only one is insufficient.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Index a repo's source files into the project's code layer.' This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling ingest_wiki by specifying repo source files rather than wiki content.

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 clear context: this tool is for indexing repository source files into the code layer. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives, but the contrast with ingest_wiki is implied through 'repo' vs. wiki.

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