reindex

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

Annotations already carry the behavioral profile: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds nothing beyond what those flags state — no cost, duration, cache-invalidation behavior, or effect on concurrent queries. Since the bar is lower with annotations but the description contributes no extra context, a 2 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity leans toward under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 that mutates an index, the description omits what the rebuild affects, whether it blocks or invalidates other lookups, and how long it may take. With only two simple params and no output schema the burden is small, but the operational impact of a rebuild is left unstated.

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 100%: 'force' explains the mtime bypass and 'project' documents the name/path with its default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Rebuild) and resource (the project index), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from potentially overlapping siblings such as memory_index, corpus_build, or checkpoint, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus alternatives like memory_index or corpus_build, nor any note on prerequisites (e.g., an active project must exist) or when a rebuild is warranted versus skipping it. The agent is left to infer all of this.

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