Rebuild the tool search index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds valuable scope context: it drops the in-memory cache, rebuilds from _ROOT.list_tools(), and affects only nexus's in-process cache with no HA change.

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?

Front-loaded core action, then labeled 'Use when', 'Not for', and 'Returns' blocks. Every sentence earns its place and the most important constraint (dev-only, no HA impact) is prominent.

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?

Given zero params and the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, yet it still does so harmlessly. Safety, scope, trigger conditions, and alternatives are all covered; nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics carry no burden; baseline for 0 params is 4. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for schema 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?

Specific verb (force-rebuild) plus specific resource (in-memory tool search index), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the discover_* siblings that rebuild lazily. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from the search tools.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' (tools mounted/changed at runtime after index was built, normally dev-only) and 'Not for' clause that names the three alternative tools and explains they already rebuild lazily. Both the trigger and the anti-trigger are stated.

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