gateway_knowledge_reindex

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

With no annotations beyond a title, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Rebuild' hints at a potentially destructive or heavy operation, but there is zero information about side effects, scope, reversibility, or resource impact, leaving behavior completely opaque.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently compact. It omits essential details, so the brevity is not a virtue; it fails to earn its place by sacrificing necessary information.

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?

For an operation that rebuilds indexes—likely resource-intensive or destructive—the description provides almost no context: no prerequisites, no effects on existing data, no expected output, and no alignment with the output schema. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing operational details.

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 single parameter 'space' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its role, allowed values, or how it affects the reindex. The phrase 'accessible knowledge spaces' is too vague to connect to the parameter.

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 'rebuild' with a clear resource 'markdown indexes' and context 'accessible knowledge spaces', making the core purpose understandable. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like search or document operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 invoke this tool versus others, nor are any preconditions, triggers, or exclusions mentioned. The description implies a maintenance task but leaves the usage context entirely to inference.

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