reload_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (re-scanning the directory) and the return value (number of indexed documents), which is good. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the operation is expensive, whether it also removes entries for deleted files, or whether any special permissions are required. This leaves some ambiguity about the tool's full impact.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and purpose; the second explicitly states the return value. Every word earns its place, and the structure is compact and direct.

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 tool is simple with zero parameters, an empty input schema, and an output schema that documents the return format. The description covers the tool's purpose and return value, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. A minor gap is not stating whether it handles removals, but this is not essential for the primary use case.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add any parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing here lowers that.

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 uses a specific verb 'Re-scan' with a clear resource, 'the knowledge-base directory', and states the intended effect: 'to pick up new or edited articles'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge_base, get_document, list_documents, list_tags, and stats, which are all read/search operations. The tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'to pick up new or edited articles' conveys the primary use case: call this tool after adding or modifying articles to refresh the index. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among the siblings. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.

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