Reindex Workspace

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

The description discloses that the tool clears and rebuilds the index, which implies a destructive action. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., temporary unavailability, performance impact), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. Annotations provide no behavioral hints (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), so the description carries the burden but provides only minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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 of a reindex operation (potentially heavy, long-running), the description is minimal. It does not mention what 'current index state' means, what triggers reindexing, or what happens to in-flight searches. The output schema is absent, so return values are not explained. However, with sibling tools like index_status, basic context is available. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage; both parameters (task, background) are clearly documented with default values and behavior (return task ID or run in background). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: clearing the current index state and rebuilding from scratch. It uses a specific verb ('clear', 'rebuild') and identifies the resource (index state of workspace). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clear_index, which likely only clears without rebuilding.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_index or index_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when to avoid using it (e.g., during peak hours). The agent is left to infer from the name and description alone.

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