kb_reindex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: it runs in the background, blocks for at most wait_seconds, and may return progress rather than a finished result. It does not state cost/duration expectations for a full rebuild, whether the call is safe to interrupt or run concurrently, or whether the index is left inconsistent if aborted.

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, then when-to-use, then runtime behavior, then params — a sensible order. Minor waste: the wait_seconds explanation in the body is repeated almost verbatim in the :param line.

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-value shape need not be described, and the description still covers the one return nuance that matters — it may return partial progress. When-to-use, async behavior, follow-up tool, and both parameters are all addressed for a 2-param optional-args tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: `full` is explained as re-extracting every file vs only changed ones, and `wait_seconds` is explained plus given the 0-50 range that the schema lacks. It omits the documented defaults (false / 40) and does not say what happens if wait_seconds is exceeded beyond 'returns progress'.

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 and resource — 'Scan the whole drive and bring the search index up to date' — which is clearly distinct from siblings like kb_scan_inbox (inbox only), kb_status (read progress), and kb_search (query). An agent can route to it without opening the 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?

Explicitly says it is 'Rarely needed' because imported/moved files index immediately and a catch-up scan runs on plug-in, then names the two conditions that do warrant it (bulk Finder copy, full=True rebuild). It also routes to kb_status as the follow-up tool for the progress case.

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