reindex

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

The description reveals idempotency (already-indexed skipped by hash), safety for repeated calls, reads only local files, writes only to a specific directory, and returns counts. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 zero parameters, an output schema (mentioned), and clear annotations, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, use case, and return value. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has no properties, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments.' Schema coverage is 100%, so no additional parameter info needed.

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 clearly states the tool re-parses shell history files into a SQLite index. It distinguishes itself from sibling query tools by focusing on indexing, and it explicitly mentions idempotency and use case (after burst of shell activity).

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?

The description explicitly recommends running after a burst of shell activity to make recent commands searchable. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools imply that this is for indexing rather than querying, providing sufficient context.

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