index_rebuild

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 disclosing side effects, permissions, or output. It says nothing about what happens during an index rebuild, whether it's destructive, or what the response contains. For a potentially heavy operation, this is a complete void.

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 extremely short (two words) but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It contains no useful information structure – no front-loaded scoping, no alternative routing. The minimalism offers no value to an agent.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague purpose, the description is fundamentally incomplete. An agent cannot determine when to call this tool, what inputs are truly needed, or what consequences the call has. It is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% with 7 parameters (only repository_id required). The description does not explain any parameter's meaning, format, or relationship to the operation. With such low coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it adds nothing beyond the schema names.

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 'index rebuild' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'index_rebuild' – a noun phrase with no verb. It does not state what the tool actually does (e.g., rebuild an index for a repository) and offers no distinction from sibling tools like semantic_fts_rebuild. This is a tautology, matching the 'process' example.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The description provides no context for selection among 90+ siblings.

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