project_index_rebuild

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

The description states that it 'uses existing read-only bridge handlers,' indicating no mutation of source assets, and it writes to Saved/MCP/index. However, it does not disclose whether the rebuild is destructive to the existing index, whether it is incremental, or any performance/cost implications. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only moderate depth.

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, front-loaded with the verb, no wasted words. Every phrase adds value: target location, scan scope, and safety mechanism (read-only handlers).

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?

The description provides the purpose, location, scan scope, and safety mechanism for a tool with six optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema. It lacks details like return values or whether the operation is synchronous, but the core context is sufficient. Given no annotations, this is reasonably 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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides; it merely lists the categories scanned, which maps to the 'categories' parameter but without specific parameter semantics.

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 (rebuild), the specific object (project intelligence index), and its location (Saved/MCP/index). It also enumerates the scan scope (assets, Blueprints, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like project_index_query and project_semantic_diff.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The verb 'Rebuild' implies it is used to refresh the index after changes, but the description does not mention when to use it vs querying or diffing the index. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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