repair_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the operation reruns pipeline/stages and then validates, but does not mention potential destructive effects, permissions, reversibility, or what 'durable stage' means. This is moderate transparency but leaves gaps about side effects.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and method. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the action and validation step, but lacks explicit mention of return values or post-conditions. Given the schema and sibling context, it is nearly complete but could add a note about what the validation returns.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema describes the 'target' parameter well. The tool description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

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: repair the prepared index, and the mechanism: rerunning the full pipeline or a specific durable stage, followed by validation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'index' (build), 'validate_index' (validates), and 'status' (informs).

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 the tool is used when an index needs repair and offers a choice between full pipeline or specific stage rerun. The schema description reinforces this with 'Use core/full for full pipeline rebuilds or a stage name for a targeted rerun.' It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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