reindex_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses parsing mechanism (AST/regex per language) and performance metric (~350 files/2s). Missing details on side effects (overwrite behavior), authorization needs, or whether the index persists.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: action, usage context, and dependencies+performance. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple input schema (3 optional params) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to run, and what it powers. Minor gap: does not explain return value or post-index state, but not critical for a setup tool.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions with defaults. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no explanation of how max_depth affects scope). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds or refreshes a project symbol index and lists extracted elements (functions, classes, variables, exports) with parsing methods. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'refresh_symbols', which may cause confusion.

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 clear guidance on when to use: 'when starting work on a project for the first time, or after significant code changes'. Mentions dependents (check_symbols, get_project_overview) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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