reindex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the index is *derived* (regenerable from graph/nodes/*.md) and that it writes into index/, but says nothing about whether the operation is safe to run while the service is live, how long it takes, or whether concurrent access/locking matters. Adequate but incomplete for an unstipulated mutating operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the actionable triggering conditions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a 0-param tool makes schema burden minimal. The description covers what is rebuilt, from what source, and when to run it, leaving only operational concerns (duration, live-run safety) unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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?

"Rebuild the derived index from graph/nodes/*.md" names a specific verb (rebuild), the resource (derived index), and its source. None of the siblings (create_node, search_nodes, briefing, etc.) perform index maintenance, so the agent can distinguish this tool immediately.

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?

It gives two concrete triggering conditions: after a manual git pull/merge, or to recover from a deleted/corrupted index/. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives or explicit when-not conditions.

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