reindex_vault

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

The description states that the re-index 'runs in the background,' indicating asynchronicity. It also implies a potentially heavy operation ('full re-index'). However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., performance impact, whether the operation is destructive, or if authentication is required). Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses behavioral traits.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys the core action, and the second adds useful context about background execution and monitoring. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description explains the action and mentions background execution and progress checking, which is adequate for a zero-parameter tool. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns immediately (e.g., a confirmation or task ID). This leaves a gap for the AI agent to infer behavior.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so the description essentially provides all semantic meaning. It explains that the tool acts on the entire vault without input, which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 'Force a full re-index of all notes in the vault,' specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_indexed_notes and search_vault by implying its purpose is to rebuild the index, not to query or modify individual files.

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 clear usage context: it should be used when a full re-index is needed, and it advises checking progress via list_indexed_notes. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if indexing is unnecessary or if other tools suffice), so some exclusion guidance is missing.

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