reindex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior of the 'full' parameter but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., performance impact, temporary unavailability) or whether the operation is safe to run concurrently.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are not required. The description covers the core purpose, parameter behavior, and usage context. Missing details about constraints (e.g., service format) are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.

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% so description must compensate. It explains 'full' well: 'full=true forces a complete re-index; otherwise only changed files are updated.' However, 'service' is only vaguely described as 'for one service' without listing possible values or format, leaving interpretability gaps.

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 states 'Rebuild the index from disk for one service,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_* and index_stats by specifying it's about rebuilding, not querying or stats.

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 includes 'Use after large changes,' which gives a high-level usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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