reindex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions building/refreshing a SQLite index, which hints that it's a write/build operation, but it doesn't disclose side effects like potentially destructive re-extraction, duration, storage impact, or whether existing index data is preserved or replaced. The 'force' parameter behavior is also not explained in the description.

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 that front-loads the purpose. It uses zero unnecessary words. It's appropriately concise, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without losing its tight structure.

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?

This is an indexing/maintenance tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what happens after reindexing, how long it takes, whether it's safe to run concurrently with other operations, or what the refresh entails. Given the complexity of a knowledge-index build and the absence of annotation support, more context would be warranted.

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%, with both parameters (force, repository) documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema: it implies 'repository' can be omitted to reindex all (redundant with the schema's 'omit to reindex all' text) but adds no new detail about the 'force' semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build or refresh the local SQLite knowledge index for one or all repositories.' It clearly identifies what the tool does (reindexing) and its scope (one or all repos). While it's clear, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_repositories or repository_status, so it loses a point.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusion of alternatives. Siblings like update_repositories, repository_status, find_examples, and analyze_* all exist but the description provides no context for when reindex is the right choice versus when another tool is more appropriate. The 'Build or refresh' wording implies idle-time maintenance but doesn't say that explicitly.

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