reindex_keyword_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important negatives (no re-scrape, no embedding recalculation), but omits other behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the index is overwritten, whether the operation is blocking, or what happens to existing index data.

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, no waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the use case and key exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its intended audience. It stops short of describing side effects or operational constraints (e.g., permissions, lock behavior), which would be helpful but are not strictly required here.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: rebuilds the keyword search index from .md files in knowledge/. It names the exact directories (sources, connections, composio) and distinguishes itself from embedding recalculation and re-scraping, making it easy to tell apart from siblings like refresh_sources.

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?

Clearly states when to use it (for sources saved before hybrid search existed) and when not to use it (does not re-scrape or recompute embeddings). No alternative tool is named explicitly, but the exclusion of re-scraping implicitly differentiates it from refresh_sources.

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