rebuild_metadata_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a valuable trait: the operation costs roughly 10 seconds to 2 minutes depending on data volume, which tells the agent this is expensive and slow. However, it says nothing about whether the rebuild is idempotent, whether it blocks concurrent queries, or whether it can fail partway.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded: what it does, then the conditions that require it, then the cost. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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, and the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and latency. What remains thin is failure/concurrency behavior for a long-running mutation, but for a parameterless maintenance command this is close to complete.

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 no parameter semantics for the description to add; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Schema coverage is also 100%, so nothing is left undocumented.

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+resource ('重建本地元数据索引' / rebuild the local metadata index) that is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the read-only lookup siblings like search_metadata and metadata_index_status. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling that reports index state, so an agent must infer that distinction rather than being told.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions: after new surveys/variables are added to the database, and after being granted access to a new schema. That is clear 'when to use' context. It does not state when NOT to run it or point at metadata_index_status as the cheaper way to check whether a rebuild is actually needed.

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