basecamp_index_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Build full index' but does not mention side effects, whether it overwrites an existing index, performance implications, or authentication requirements, leaving the tool's operational behavior opaque.

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, well-structured sentence with the verb front-loaded, no redundant words, and all essential information about scope and purpose.

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?

Despite the minimal schema, the description omits critical context such as whether this is a one-time setup, how the index is stored or refreshed, and its relationship to the many other index-related sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the guidelines. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and the empty schema adds no further burden.

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 action ('Build'), the resource scope ('all projects, card tables, and columns'), and the intended benefit ('for fast lookups'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like basecamp_index_search and basecamp_index_update_project.

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 a full-index build that complements partial-update tools like basecamp_index_update_project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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