lib_rebuild_index

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

The description lacks detail on side effects or preconditions. 'Rebuild' suggests a destructive/re-creation action, but it doesn't disclose if the index becomes temporarily unavailable, whether it's safe to call mid-session, or how long it takes. Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a tool with no parameters.

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?

While the output schema covers return values, the description omits important context such as when this tool should be used, what conditions warrant rebuilding, and what the impact on the current session might be. This leaves the agent under-informed for decision-making.

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 information to add. The schema already fully covers the input, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters.

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 ('rebuild') and a clear resource ('in-memory symbol search index'), making its function immediately obvious. It also differentiates from sibling tools by targeting an internal index rather than a typical search/query operation.

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 guidance about when to invoke this tool, nor references to alternatives. It doesn't state whether to run after library changes, when the index is corrupted, or any conditions.

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