Ingest documents into the RAG index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core operation ('re-index'), but does not mention whether it clears the existing index, whether it is idempotent, or whether it may cause downtime or delays. While 're-index' implies rebuilding, important behavioral details are omitted, making 3 the appropriate score.

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?

Two sentences, both necessary. The first states the action and resource; the second provides usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded, and perfectly sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and clear sibling relationships, the description fully covers the necessary information: what it does, when to call it, and its role relative to rag_query. There is no ambiguity left for the agent.

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 parameter semantics is largely moot. The description adds context by mentioning the 'configured markdown document set', implying the source is externally configured. This provides useful meaning beyond the empty schema, justifying a baseline 4.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Re-index' and clearly identifies the resource ('configured markdown document set on the RAG service'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing the precondition for rag_query and the action of re-indexing.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call this once before rag_query if the index is empty or the docs changed.' This directly names the sibling tool and gives concrete conditions, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool instead of rag_query.

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