rebuild_solution

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

Discloses that the tool performs a destructive-like operation (full reload, recompile, rebuild indexes). No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the actions, but could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., long runtime, discarding cached state).

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: first explains what it does, second advises when to use. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and usage. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke, though could mention expected duration or whether it blocks other operations.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool forces a full reload of the solution by re-opening the .sln, recompiling all projects, and rebuilding indexes. Distinguishes itself from siblings like load_solution (loads without rebuild) and set_active_solution (merely switches).

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 use cases: after changing Directory.Build.props, adding/removing NuGet packages, or when diagnostics seem stale. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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