semantic_fts_rebuild

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'rebuild' implies an index-construction operation, but the description does not state whether it is destructive, how long it takes, what data it operates on, or any side effects. This is completely insufficient.

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, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no useful information in the text, so the brevity is not a virtue. It does not front-load any critical details.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to provide any context about the tool's purpose, behavior, parameters, or relationship to siblings. An agent could not use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to any of the 6 parameters. The required parameters repository_id and target_commit are not explained, and the optional parameters (request_id, tool_version, schema_version, include_statuses) are entirely undocumented. The description offers zero value in parameter understanding.

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 'semantic fts rebuild' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name without explaining what the tool does. It fails to identify the verb (rebuild), the resource (semantic full-text search index), or any scope. It does not differentiate from siblings like business_fts_rebuild or index_rebuild.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent has no information about the intended use case, prerequisites, or context in which this tool is appropriate.

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