Refresh Index

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 clearly states the action ('force a rebuild'), but does not mention potential side effects, cost, whether the operation is asynchronous, or if it affects other sessions. For a rebuild operation this is acceptable but not rich.

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 one sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action ('Force a rebuild'), then immediately offers a practical example that justifies the operation.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the essential purpose and a typical invocation context. It does not elaborate on timing or blocking behavior, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema covers the empty set 100%, and the description correctly focuses on when and why to call the tool rather than on nonexistent inputs.

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 ('Force a rebuild') and a clear resource ('the session index'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sessions or save_active_session. The 'e.g.' example grounds the action in a concrete scenario.

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 description gives a clear context for when to use this tool ('right after a large session has just finished'), which implies the index may be stale or incomplete. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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