st.index.refresh

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation regenerates/rewrites an existing index and requires an explicit confirmation flag. It does not mention side effects, duration, failure behavior, or whether the operation is destructive beyond the implied regeneration.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately states the safety requirement. There is no filler or repetition; every word adds value.

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?

For a tool with a single boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core needs: what is regenerated, which features consume the index, and what value must be passed. It omits return value and the effect of confirm:false, but those are minor for a simple refresh operation. A slightly richer description could mention side effects, but this is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by stating the critical constraint on the only parameter: confirm must be true. This is essential information that the schema omits. It does not explain what confirm:false does, but the parameter is simple and its purpose is made clear.

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 a specific verb ('Regenerate') and resource ('static upstream ST codebase index'), and names the endpoints that rely on it (st://index, st://index/markdown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like st.source.read or st.source.write, which operate on source content rather than the generated index.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for rebuilding the index used by st://index and st://index/markdown. It also provides an explicit invocation condition ('Requires confirm: true'). However, it does not discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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