rebuild_feed

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

There are no annotations to carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals that the operation is deterministic and reads from SQLite, but it does not state whether this overwrites existing public artifacts, requires special permissions, or has side effects on published feeds. 'Regenerate' implies mutation but the consequences are undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and avoids redundant restatement of the tool name. The brevity is appropriate given there are no parameters to document.

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?

Despite having an output schema and no parameters, the description lacks critical context. It does not explain what 'public artifacts' are, what effects regeneration has on the live feed, when this should be run, or why it would be preferred over publication or validation siblings. An agent would likely need additional information to invoke this safely and correctly.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds context by naming the data source but does not need to explain parameter meanings. No parameter documentation gap exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('Regenerate') and identifies both the source ('authoritative SQLite state') and the output ('deterministic public artifacts'). It is clearer than a bare tautology and differentiates from siblings like validate_feed or audit_feed by implying a regeneration action, though 'public artifacts' is somewhat vague and not explicitly linked to feeds.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of siblings like publish_batch, correct_entry, or get_feed. The phrase 'from authoritative SQLite state' hints at a precondition but does not state concrete triggers, alternatives, or exclusion criteria.

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