reindex_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('re-index') and mentions 'embeddings,' which hints at the underlying mechanism, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on the search index while indexing), whether it is idempotent, or any required permissions. This is a moderate level of transparency for a state-changing operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler, achieving an ideal structure for a tool description.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and usage, and the schema handles parameter details. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, status) or mention any preconditions like the indexing system being initialized. Given the lack of annotations, this leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (file_path: 'Path to file to reindex'; force: 'Force reindex even if unchanged') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Re-index a specific file for search') with a specific resource ('specific file') and purpose ('for search'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'reindex' by focusing on a single file, and mentions 'force a refresh of a file's embeddings' for additional specificity.

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 explicit contexts for use: 'when a file has been modified but not yet re-indexed' or 'when you want to force a refresh.' It implies this is for individual files rather than a bulk reindex, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping 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.