reindex_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the scanning behavior, the impact of force (full re-index, slow), and the return dictionary with success, counts, and errors. It does not mention side effects like index overwriting or permissions, but for this tool the disclosed details are adequate.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a clarifying paragraph, then Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, usage, and behavior.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is thorough. It explains what the tool does, when to run it, the meaning of the only parameter, and the shape of the return value. The agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 input schema provides only a boolean 'force' with a default, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'If True, re-index ALL images (slow). If False, only index new or modified images (default, recommended).' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies the parameter's effect and performance trade-off.

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: 'Re-index the photo archive for new or modified images.' The verb 're-index' and resource 'photo archive' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_images and get_archive_stats, which serve different purposes (querying and stats).

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 provides clear context: 'This should be run after adding new photos to the archive.' It also recommends the default behavior (force=False) as the preferred approach. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficient given the distinct sibling tool purposes.

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