reindex_file

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

The description discloses non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: that it ignores the content hash cache, and that existing chunks are deleted before re-parse/re-chunk/re-embed/store. This aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false (only derived chunks are replaced). It doesn't mention cost/latency of re-embedding, which is the main missing behavioral detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its key property (force, ignore cache), followed by the mechanics and the use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the pipeline description and use case, an agent has what it needs; only a note on relative cost versus a normal index pass is absent.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents file_path (absolute path) and db_path (env var fallback). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (re-index) plus resource (a single file) and scope, explicitly contrasting with the folder-level sibling index_folder. An agent can distinguish it from index_folder and semantic_search without opening any schema.

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?

"Useful when you know a file has changed or when parsing was updated" gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. index_folder for bulk work) or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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