refresh_document_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and the optional single-file vs. full-directory scoping. It fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing indexes), performance implications of a full scan, or any required setup like a connection.

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 sentence of 13 words, clearly structured with an either/or ('or') that mirrors the two execution modes. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description lacks critical contextual information for a potentially heavy or destructive operation. It doesn't warn that scanning the entire directory could be time-consuming or that reindexing might replace existing index entries. Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter), the description is still incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that 'source' corresponds to a single file when provided, and that omitting it triggers a complete directory scan. This adds useful semantic meaning beyond the bare schema definition, though it doesn't specify the acceptable format of the source value.

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 action ('Reindex') and the two distinct resources it works on ('a single file' or 'the documents directory completely'). It is specific and differentiates itself from sibling tools like delete_indexed_document or search_documents by focusing on reindexing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., refresh_schema_cache, delete_indexed_document). The description implies two usage modes but doesn't state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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