Reindex documents

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: normal automatic pickup latency (within a second) and the fact that full: true re-embeds everything, which signals a materially heavier operation. It stops short of stating whether the call blocks or how long a full re-embed takes, so it is not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and then the usage conditions. Every clause earns its place: the automatic-indexing note prevents unnecessary calls and the full flag guidance drives correct invocation.

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 a single-optional-boolean, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers what it does, when to invoke it, and what the lone parameter changes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of 'full' on its own, and it largely does: full: true re-embeds everything versus the implied incremental default that only picks up changes. The default value (false) and the incremental-path behavior are only implied rather than stated outright, keeping this from a 5.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: bringing the folder's index up to date. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like ragdown_recall, ragdown_edit, or ragdown_stats, which do not touch the index. No ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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?

It explicitly frames the default behavior (changes are normally picked up automatically within a second), tells the agent when NOT to call it, and then names the two triggering conditions: bulk edits made while no server was running, or full: true to re-embed everything. This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative formulation.

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