Refresh 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not explain whether the refresh is incremental or full, whether it affects search/grep results, how long it may take, or whether it requires special permissions or filesystem access.

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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter utility tool.

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?

With no annotations and an output schema that already covers return values, the description should at least state when the refresh is needed and what side effects it produces. It leaves out practical context like 'run after file changes to update search results', so an agent lacks enough information to decide when to invoke it.

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 and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none to document.

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 names a specific verb ('refresh') and resource ('file index'), so an agent can tell what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling name overlaps with an index-refresh operation, so the intent is reasonably clear.

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 guidance on when to call this tool, what conditions make a refresh necessary, or why an agent should choose it over alternatives. The only usage signal is inferred from the title and description, not explicitly stated.

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