kb_reindex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is refused in readonly mode and is audited (N127), both of which affect how the agent should approach the call. It does not describe interruption safety or how 'changed' folders are detected, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The main operation is front-loaded, followed by the readonly restriction and audit note.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and informative annotations. The description covers the core operation, scope, precondition, and audit side effect. Remaining gaps—path format and the distinction from kb_rebuild—are minor but non-trivial.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single optional 'path' parameter. It implies that passing a path targets one project folder and omitting it re-indexes every changed folder, which is valuable. It does not explicitly name the parameter or specify path format, leaving clear gaps.

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 and resource: 'Re-index one project folder (or every changed one) after edits.' This clearly identifies the operation and its scope. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling kb_rebuild, leaving the agent to infer the difference between incremental re-indexing and a full rebuild.

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?

'After edits' implies the trigger condition, and 'Refused in readonly mode' gives one explicit exclusion. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of kb_rebuild or other KB tools, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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