index_repository

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 mentions incremental updates but omits potential side effects such as deletion of previous data (via force_rebuild) or long-running nature. The embedding model download is only in the schema, not the description.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the main function, the second highlights a key feature (incremental updates). No wasted words.

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 no output schema and a relatively complex tool (indexing can be heavy with side effects), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., file access), duration, or that force_rebuild erases data. Contextual gaps remain.

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 the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'Index' and resource 'code repository' with the specific purpose 'to build the symbol graph'. It also mentions 'supports incremental updates', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform queries or analyses.

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 building/updating a symbol graph, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_code or when not to use it. It lacks clear usage context.

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