Permanently clears all indexed data for a codebase, fixing corrupted search indexes, removing obsolete projects, and freeing storage before reindexing.
<when_to_use> Clear stale data before reindexing after major code changes Remove old indexed codebases no longer needed Fix corrupted index causing search issues </when_to_use>
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codebase_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns 'Destructive operation. All search capabilities lost until reindexing' and notes that omitting the parameter clears ALL indexed codebases. This is excellent transparency for a destructive action.
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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when_to_use, parameters, warnings). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose—including examples and warnings are directly actionable. No fluff or repetition.
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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and safety warnings. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings. Nothing important is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate completely. It does: it provides the parameter type (string), validation (absolute path starting with / or C:\), valid/invalid examples, and optional behavior ('Omit to clear ALL indexed codebases'). This adds far more meaning than the bare schema.
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 'Permanently removes all indexed data for a codebase', using a specific verb ('removes'), a resource ('indexed data'), and a scope ('for a codebase'). This distinguishes it from siblings like index_codebase (adds data) and search_codebase (reads data).
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 'when_to_use' section provides three concrete scenarios: clearing stale data before reindexing, removing old codebases, and fixing corrupted indexes. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use, the scenarios give clear context relative to sibling tools. A slightly higher score would require explicit exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.