kb_hub_rescan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the rescan only affects the calling session (mono-instance scope), which is non-obvious and crucial. However, it does not mention what happens to existing discovered bases, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the return value is. The most important nuance is covered, but some secondary behavioral 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?

The description is two concise sentences plus a bolded scope note. The first sentence states the action and trigger, and the second adds the scope warning. There is no fluff, and the most important content (action + when) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 0-parameter action with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent exactly when to invoke it (after import) and discloses the critical mono-instance limitation. It omits minor details like behavior when there are no new imports or any return value, but for such a simple tool, the provided context is sufficient for correct 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 has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter info because there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, 0 params is baseline 4, and nothing is missing; the description correctly focuses on the action and scope rather than parameter details.

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 clearly states the action ('Relance la découverte des bases dans bases-dir') and the specific trigger (after importing a bundle). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like kb_list, kb_search, and kb_read, which are query tools; this is a rescan operation. The verb and resource are precise.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool: 'à appeler après avoir importé un bundle' (to be called after importing a bundle), with a concrete git clone example. It also warns about the mono-instance scope, clarifying that other sessions won't see the new base unless they rescan or restart. This gives the agent a clear trigger and context, even without naming specific siblings.

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