Rebuild index

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail about how incremental mode processes only changed files and full mode rebuilds everything. It also notes that normal write paths already update the index, which helps the agent predict side effects.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action, then give mode semantics and guidance. Every sentence earns its place and no content is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 is sufficient for a no-required-parameter maintenance tool with annotations: it explains when to use, the two modes, and the default. It does not describe return values or performance characteristics, but no output schema exists and reindexing is a side-effect operation, so those are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description enhances the mode parameter by explaining what each enum value actually does, though it adds no additional semantics for the paths parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action verb 'Refresh' with a specific resource ('the search index') and clarifies two modes, incremental vs full. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling wiki_update_index, so an agent must infer which tool handles which indexing task.

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 concrete usage context: usually unnecessary because write tools update the index, and needed only after filesystem changes outside the server. It does not name the alternative tools or state an explicit when-not-to-use rule, but the condition is clear enough for most routing decisions.

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