Index local scripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the index is in-memory (not persisted), local-only (no external data transfer), and does not use an external decompiler. This goes beyond the annotations but does not disclose all side effects (e.g., overwriting existing index), though the readOnly hint mitigates the need.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Build'. It contains no filler and packs relevant detail about scope (local-only), storage (in-memory), and content (stable path, bytecode metadata). Every word 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., an index summary, success indicator). It also omits behavior around maxScripts and includeBytecodeMetadata parameters. Given the tool's role among siblings (likely a precursor to analysis), the lack of return-value information and parameter edge cases makes the description incomplete.

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 coverage is only 33% (only clientId has a description). The description does not mention maxScripts or includeBytecodeMetadata, though it hints at bytecode hash/size 'when available' which partially relates to includeBytecodeMetadata. Overall, parameter meaning is not adequately explained, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'Build' with resource 'in-memory, local-only script/module index' clearly states the action and object. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting 'local-only' and 'no external decompiler', which differentiates it from search/analysis/disassembly 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?

The description implies usage for creating a lightweight local index without decompiling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_scripts or analyze_script. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so guidance is only implicit.

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