Refresh index

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the key behavioral facts: PDFs are never modified, force=true re-parses everything while the default only handles new/changed files, and a single failing file does not abort the batch. These are consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It omits how long a forced full re-parse takes and what the call returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each contributing a distinct fact: purpose, safety guarantee, parameter semantics, and failure isolation. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

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?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive maintenance tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, parameter behavior and error handling. The only real gap is that it does not say what a caller learns from the result (e.g., counts of parsed or failed files), which matters given failure isolation is advertised.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does: 'force=true re-parses every paper; otherwise only new/changed files are parsed.' This gives both the meaning and the default behavior, which the bare boolean schema does not.

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 specific verb+resource pair: 'Rescan the PDF folder and (re)build the local derived cache.' That immediately separates it from read-only siblings like list_papers or search_papers, which consume the index rather than build it. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the relationship.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the incremental-by-default behavior suggests it is safe to call routinely, and force=true implies a rarer full rebuild. There is no explicit 'call this when X' or guidance on when another tool is the better choice. An agent can infer intent but is not told preconditions or cost trade-offs.

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