Regenerate the root INDEX.md from current directory contents using atomic writes, so an interrupted run never leaves a truncated or corrupted index file.
Regenerate the root INDEX.md from the current directory contents.
Writes atomically (temp file + rename) so an interrupted run never leaves a truncated index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the write is atomic via temp file plus rename, preventing truncated indexes on interruption. It still omits prerequisites such as whether the root directory must exist and whether manual edits are overwritten.
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 zero waste. The main action is front-loaded, and the atomic-write detail follows immediately as supporting context.
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?
The tool is simple, has no parameters, and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core operation and the key safety behavior, though it leaves the relationship to kb_reindex unclear.
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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly adds no irrelevant parameter detail, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 names a specific verb and resource: regenerate the root INDEX.md from current directory contents. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling kb_reindex, which likely has overlapping semantics.
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?
It states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or how it differs from kb_reindex. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the phrase 'from the current directory contents'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.