map_rebuild

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that the rebuild is incremental (only re-parses changed files except on first build), and mentions it's long-running on first build. It does not disclose any destructive side effects or system impacts beyond time, but the description is clear enough for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded with the action and key behavior (incremental). Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second provides usage guidance and performance context. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (side-effect operation) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers when to use, performance implications, and distinction from live queries. It could optionally mention return format or completion signal, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide correctly.

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 100% with the 'scope' parameter described as 'Subtree to rebuild, e.g. 'src/auth'; omit for the whole repo.' The description repeats 'omit for the whole repo' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Rebuild the static map index') and resource (map index), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_neighbors, map_overview, and the nav_* tools by stating it's not needed for nav_* correctness.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: 'Use when map responses flag staleness or after large refactors.' Also states when not to use: 'Not needed for nav_* correctness.' The note about long-running first build sets performance expectations.

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