index_project

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the extraction contract (source facts as evidence, README meanings as proposals), categorization of candidates into existing/ambiguous/new buckets, return of reviewCalls, and explicit 'side effect 0: this tool never writes markdown.' It also explains that inferred imports are never auto-promoted, adding behavioral nuance not captured by annotations. No contradiction.

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 long but well-structured: the first sentence gives purpose, the second usage, then behavioral details. Every sentence conveys necessary information for a complex orchestration tool, though some phrasing could be tightened. It is front-loaded with the most critical usage guidance.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of a full output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and key return categories (competency questions, uncertainty, approval gates, reviewCalls). It even clarifies when active-vault validation may not apply, so nothing essential for correct invocation appears 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 coverage for all parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions them in passing (e.g., 'forwarded to'), so it doesn't compensate beyond 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 tool orchestrates three specific analyzer tools (analyze_repo_structure, infer_imports, validate_vault) into a single read-only indexing plan. It distinguishes itself from those underlying tools by being a composite and from the CLI write variant by explicitly being read-only and never writing markdown.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'for large or already-existing projects where the agent needs a resumable ontology indexing checkpoint before writing.' It also contrasts with the CLI `index --apply` which may write, positioning this tool as the read-only alternative with the note that inferred imports remain review-only.

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