lexomni_buildIndex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool writes/updates an index but does not disclose whether existing indexes are replaced, whether the operation is expensive, whether file reading can fail, or whether special permissions are needed. This is a thin disclosure for a mutation-like tool.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are stated upfront, and the source location is included without unnecessary detail.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: the meaning of `sources`, the side effects of rerunning, and the recommended workflow alongside `lexomni_searchDocs` are all missing. It is barely more useful than the tool name alone.

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%, and the description does not explain the `sources` parameter at all. The enum values (`user`, `agent`, `books`) are somewhat self-explanatory, but an agent is left to guess whether they refer to directories, categories, or something else, and what omitting `sources` means.

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 ('Generates/updates') and resource ('SQLite FTS5 index'), with a clear input scope ('MDs and PDFs in _lexomni'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like lexomni_searchDocs, lexomni_readDoc, and lexomni_writeNote.

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 implies the tool is used to build or refresh searchable indexes over documents, which suggests it should be run before searching. However, it never explicitly states when to run it, when not to run it, or how it relates to the sibling `lexomni_searchDocs` tool.

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