flightlog_ingest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (forcing re-scan) and the automatic default. However, lacks details on side effects, resource usage, or safety implications.

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, no wasted words. Purpose and usage are front-loaded. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential use but does not explain return values or post-ingestion behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 single optional 'path' parameter is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional explanation beyond the schema, thus achieving baseline.

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?

Clearly states the tool triggers re-indexing of Claude Code conversation logs. It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like flightlog_delete_sessions or flightlog_search.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: to force a full re-scan when the automatic near-realtime process is insufficient. Implies not needed for normal cases, but does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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