turingmind_index_codebase

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool parses AST and extracts relationships, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, performance impact, or network requirements. The force_reindex parameter hints at idempotency, but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. No unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and method well. Missing details on return value or side effects, but overall sufficient for an indexing tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; each parameter is adequately described in the schema. No additional context on parameter usage or limitations.

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 the tool indexes a codebase using AST parsing, extracting specific entities (functions, classes, files) and relationships. It explicitly links to code review and impact analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like turingmind_apply_edit or turingmind_analyze_diff.

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 use for code review and impact analysis but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternatives. It is clear but lacks direct usage instructions.

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