bsl_reindex

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the server auto-syncs .bsl edits and that reindex is unnecessary for navigation/diagnostics, but says nothing about cost, duration, blocking behavior, or whether it is safe to interrupt. 'Полный реиндекс' implies an expensive operation but never quantifies it.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the primary use case front-loaded before the exclusion. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key decision (when to reindex vs. when it is redundant). The remaining gap is operational: no indication of how long a full reindex takes or whether it blocks other calls.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-corpus operation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a full reindex of the corpus, with the trigger condition (metadata changes) named. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, and 'corpus' is only implicitly defined, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (after metadata changes: new objects, attributes) and when NOT to use it (after .bsl file edits on disk — working copy, commits, branch switching — which the server picks up automatically before navigation and diagnostics requests). Both directions are spelled out rather than inferred.

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