Index Project Symbols

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

The annotation destructiveHint already signals mutation, and the description adds context that indexing symbols is the point, implying some index state is created. However, it doesn't disclose what destructive effects may occur, permissions needed, or response behavior, leaving the annotation to carry much of the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, especially the parenthetical list of symbol types.

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 a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It lacks when-to-use guidance, side effects, output description, and relationship to sibling tools. The schema covers parameters but not usage context.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of 'symbols (functions, classes, variables)' adds purpose-level context but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('project directory to index symbols'), and names the symbol types (functions, classes, variables). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling reindex_project, so it falls just 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reindex_project, search_symbols, or semantic_code_search. The description implies usage but doesn't state exclusions or selection criteria.

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