bsl_reindex

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. The description only says it performs a full reindex and is intended for large changes. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing indexes, how long it takes, whether it requires special permissions, or whether it is safe to run concurrently). For a mutation operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a useful clarification about when not to use it. No fluff or redundant phrasing. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., a bulleted list) but is efficient as-is.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately explains what it does and when to use it. However, it omits details about the outcome or effects of the reindex (e.g., whether it returns a success/failure status, whether it blocks other operations, or any post-condition). Given that it is a mutation tool, some note about its runtime behavior or reversibility would improve completeness.

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 with 100% coverage by definition. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information (there is none to add) but also does not need to. It correctly focuses on the action and its intended use case.

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 a specific action (full reindex) on a specific resource (corpus) and gives the condition under which it applies (after mass configuration changes). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all focus on analysis (callers, callees, definitions, references, diagnostics, complexity) rather than maintenance. The verb 'reindex' and resource 'corpus' are explicit and 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 description provides clear usage context: use for large configuration changes, not for small module edits, which are handled automatically. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but it gives a practical decision rule (mass vs. point changes). This is more specific than just 'when to use' and helps an agent avoid unnecessary reindexing.

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