rebuild_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'full rebuild', indicating a destructive/recreating action, and specifies the source from existing pages. However, it does not disclose side effects such as search unavailability during rebuild, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible/concurrent.

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 verb and resource, with no wasted words. It captures the essential information efficiently.

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 a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its source. It lacks explicit guidance on when to run it relative to other tools, but the description is sufficient for a simple invocation action.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no extraneous param-related noise.

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 function: to fully rebuild both vector and BM25 indexes from existing Wiki pages. The verb 'rebuild' is specific, and it names the resource ('index') and source ('existing Wiki pages'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'ingest' or 'query'.

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 implies use after content changes ('from existing Wiki pages') but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like 'ingest' or whether it is needed after every write. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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