reindex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'rebuild index' but does not clarify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, potential performance impacts, or error handling. The example implies a data migration, but without explicit safety or side-effect warnings, transparency is inadequate.

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 structured with sections for parameters and an example, which aids readability. However, it includes redundant information (e.g., listing parameters that are already in the schema without adding much value) and lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement. It is moderately concise but could be more efficient.

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 complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the reindexing process, potential side effects, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that likely involves data manipulation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'source: 源配置', 'dest: 目标配置'). It adds meaning beyond the schema by hinting at their roles in reindexing, though it lacks detailed syntax or constraints. Since there are parameters, it exceeds the baseline but could be more informative.

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 begins with '重建索引' (reindex), which is a tautology of the tool name. It does specify a verb ('rebuild') and resource ('index'), but lacks specificity about what reindexing entails or how it differs from similar operations like index_clone or index_shrink. Without distinguishing from siblings, it remains vague.

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. The description lists parameters and an example but does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools like index_clone might be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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