kb_reindex

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the incremental-vs-full behavior and the cost implication that full re-extracts every file, but says nothing about permissions, duration, concurrency, or whether the operation is safe to interrupt or repeat.

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 short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The ':param' reStructuredText artifact is slightly out of place in a tool description but costs little.

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?

A mutation-flavored maintenance tool with no annotations and an output schema (so returns needn't be explained). The one parameter is well covered, but guidance on when to run it, prerequisites, and side effects on the existing index 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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, but the description compensates well by defining 'full' as re-extracting every file rather than only changed ones. That is the key semantic an agent needs to choose the value.

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: scan the volume and update the search index incrementally. That distinguishes it from kb_search and kb_read_document, though it is not explicitly differentiated from kb_health_check or kb_update_index_md, which an agent might confuse with an index-maintenance operation.

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?

Implies usage ('incrementally' vs a full re-scan) but never states when an agent should call this versus siblings such as kb_scan_inbox or kb_update_index_md, nor whether it is safe or necessary to run routinely.

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