art.asset.rebuild_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Rebuild' implies a destructive overwrite of the existing index and a potentially expensive scan of asset files, but none of these side effects, performance implications, or error states are mentioned. The description adds some context about the data source but does not cover the operational impact.

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, well-formed sentence that states the operation and its input source with no redundant details. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks behavioral warnings and usage context. Given that the tool is a mutation-like operation with no annotations, an agent might benefit from knowing when to use it and what consequences to expect. Still, the core action is clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to clarify parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 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 uses the specific verb 'rebuild' with the resource 'asset registry index' and identifies the source as 'all registered asset files'. This clearly distinguishes it from asset query/registration tools like art.asset.get or art.asset.register.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. While the action is clear, an agent is left to infer when a rebuild is appropriate, such as after bulk registration or index corruption. No alternative or exclusion is stated.

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