index_project

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description goes well beyond them: it states "side effect 0: this tool never writes markdown," explains the extractionContract/evidence-versus-proposal semantics, and clarifies that only the CLI `--apply` path writes (analyzer-proposed concepts and containment) while inferred imports stay review-only and are never auto-promoted to depends_on. That is exactly the mutation/auth/side-effect detail structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description runs six-plus dense sentences heavy with internal jargon ("extractionContract," "genuinely new buckets," "competency questions") that is costly to parse. It is information-dense rather than padded, but the lack of shortening/structure keeps it from earning a 4.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes the plan contents (candidate buckets, reviewCalls, competency questions, uncertainty, approval gates, validation applicability), giving the agent a complete mental model. Combined with the read-only annotations, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter (maxDepth, maxFiles, rootPath, threshold, skipImports). The description adds a little routing context (which sub-tool each param forwards to, and the skipImports behavior), but does not add format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening states a specific verb+resource (index a project's ontology) and immediately names the three sibling tools it orchestrates (analyze_repo_structure, infer_imports, validate_vault), so an agent can distinguish it from those siblings without reading schemas. The read-only plan scope is explicit up front.

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?

"Use for large or already-existing projects where the agent needs a resumable ontology indexing checkpoint before writing" gives a clear triggering condition, and skipImports plus the CLI `index --apply` note sketch the alternative path. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance for smaller projects or a direct compare against calling the three sub-tools individually.

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