index_codebase

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: scanning Python files, extracting code elements, generating embeddings, and storing for search. It mentions incremental vs full re-indexing and returns statistics. However, it lacks warnings about prerequisites or performance impact.

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 concise with a clear header, bullet explanation, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral nuances. It could mention that only Python files are supported and any prerequisites, but overall it is complete.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining project_path as an absolute path and force as a re-index flag. Schema coverage is 0% per context, so description compensates well, though both parameters are described.

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 for semantic search, scanning Python files and extracting functions/classes/methods. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_code' and 'index_status'.

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 explains when to use force=True vs incremental indexing, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives like search_code. It provides clear context for the force parameter.

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