Rebuild Indexes

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the enterprise-geodatabase scoping constraint, but says nothing about locking behavior, runtime, or whether running it on active datasets is safe — context that matters for a maintenance write.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the operation and immediately follows with the key constraint. No filler, though the terseness is part of why other dimensions suffer.

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?

For a mutating enterprise-geodatabase maintenance tool with no annotation-covered side-effect details and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is too thin. The output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the impact and the two unexplained parameters leave clear gaps.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It only clarifies the naming constraint for 'datasets' and ignores 'delta_only' (an enum-like string defaulting to ONLY_DELTAS) and 'include_system' entirely, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb (rebuild) and resource (indexes) scoped to datasets or system tables in an enterprise geodatabase, which distinguishes it from add_index and remove_index. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action verb alone is unambiguous.

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?

It supplies a genuine precondition — the tool applies only to enterprise geodatabases and dataset names must be relative to the .sde workspace — which implies the maintenance context. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus add_index/remove_index/analyze_datasets guidance, so routing is left to inference.

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