Index Project

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

The description only states 'build or refresh' without elaborating on side effects like time consumption, resource usage, or whether existing indices are overwritten. With annotations providing minimal information (e.g., destructiveHint=false), more context is needed.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, which is a trade-off acceptable for conciseness but reduces completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (per context signals), the description fails to cover key usage aspects like parameter explanations and pre/post conditions. For a tool with five parameters and no schema descriptions, this is notably incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters, but only hints at project_path and all_roots via 'for a project or across all roots.' The force, max_files, and response_format parameters are not described, so the description adds limited value over the schema.

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's action ('Build or refresh semantic index') and its scope ('for a project or across all roots'), providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from related index tools like localnest_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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as localnest_index_status for checking index state or localnest_search_* for querying. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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