index_rebuild

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions 'Rebuild' and 'from all source files', but does not explain potential side effects like whether the existing index is replaced, if the operation is time-consuming, or if it can run concurrently with other operations. The return value is disclosed, but safety and impact traits are missing.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It contains no filler words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the operation is potentially heavy (full index rebuild) and no annotations or detailed output schema are available, the description could provide more context about operational impact, prerequisites, or caution. However, the input is simple (no params) and the return value is stated, making it minimally complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The schema already accurately reflects this, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, which is appropriate here since the description adds no unnecessary details.

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 ('Rebuild') and the resource ('vector index') with explicit scope ('from all source files'), making it specific and distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on case, fiche, and skill data. It also mentions the return value ('Returns doc count'), further clarifying its purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a rebuild is necessary (e.g., after updating source files) or any caution about running it during production. The description simply states what it does without context for appropriate usage.

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