metadata_recompute_baseline

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

The description states 'Erase metadata,' which indicates a destructive action, directly contradicting the destructiveHint=false annotation. This is a significant inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's safety profile. No other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the primary action and requires no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite the simple no-parameter signature, the tool performs a major operation (erasing metadata) with contradictory safety annotations. The description fails to clarify the impact, prerequisites, or consequences, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke safely.

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 and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. Based on the rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the tool erases metadata and re-indexes the codebase from scratch. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the sibling metadata_erase tool, which only erases metadata without re-indexing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like metadata_erase. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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