rebuild_brain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation's broad scope (every note) and a key precondition (pause first), but omits whether existing content is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, how long it takes, or what permissions are required. Some behavioral context is given, but critical mutation safety details are missing.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the one prerequisite appended. No wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a bulk re-rendering operation with no annotations, the description is sparse on side effects, reversibility, and interaction with the pause/resume cycle—leaving meaningful gaps for safe invocation.

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 nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline score of 4 applies for a parameterless operation.

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 ('Re-render') and resource ('every note') with concrete scope details (clean names, key points, topic links, dashboards). The bulk operation is distinct from sibling tools like search_brain or brain_doctor, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Includes one concrete prerequisite ('Pause first') which is useful guidance, but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like brain_doctor, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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