reindex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Incremental and fast" hints that only changed files are touched and cost is low, but it does not say whether the call blocks, how long it may take on large change sets, whether it is safe/idempotent, or what permissions it needs.

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 short sentence with the operation and the key qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the guidance the definition lacks elsewhere.

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?

A param-free tool with an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core action. Still missing is the operational context an agent needs: scope (whole repo vs. workspace), whether other tools depend on a fresh index, and whether the call is safe to repeat.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level, and the schema is fully self-describing here.

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?

Names a specific operation (re-index) and resource (changed files), plus the execution mode. It is clearly a maintenance action distinct from the query-oriented siblings (search, get_context, find_symbol), though that distinction comes from the verb rather than explicit contrasting language.

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?

"Changed files" implies the trigger is stale or edited files, so the usage context is inferable. However, the description never states when an agent should call this rather than relying on an already-fresh index, nor whether indexing happens automatically.

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