rebuild_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that by default only missing documents are indexed, clean=True rebuilds everything from scratch, and slugs ignores already-indexed status and re-indexes specified docs. This gives a solid understanding of side effects, though it could further mention impact on existing index data or concurrency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses a separate paragraph for default behavior and a bullet-like Args list for detailed parameter semantics. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers all operation modes, parameter effects, and the relationship to 'downloaded documentation.' It could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites (e.g., docs must be downloaded first) and interaction with removal tools, but these are minor 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?

The schema provides only parameter names, types, and defaults with 0% coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter's meaning and effect. For example, it clarifies that clean=True rebuilds entirely from scratch and that slugs accepts a list like ['vulkan', 'python'] to re-index specific docs, going well beyond the schema.

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 clear, specific action: 'Rebuild the embedding index from downloaded documentation.' This distinctly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like list_docs, search_docs, and download_doc, which do not perform index rebuilding.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool by explaining the default incremental behavior, the clean=True full rebuild, and the slugs parameter for targeted re-indexing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage modes are well specified.

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