Reindex notes

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

Annotations declare a safe mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds valuable context beyond them by explaining that indexing is normally automatic and this is a manual, idempotent corrective action. It doesn't hint at cost or duration of a full re-embed, which is the one meaningful gap for a potentially expensive operation.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary action and its trigger condition are front-loaded, and the parameter note comes second where it belongs.

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?

No output schema and only one optional parameter, so little needs explaining; the description covers purpose, trigger, and parameter semantics adequately. It stops short of stating what happens on completion or how long a full reindex takes, a minor omission for an operation that may be long-running.

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 coverage is 0% and the lone boolean has no description in the schema, but the description supplies its meaning: 'full: true to re-embed everything', implying the default false does an incremental update. That is exactly the compensation a low-coverage schema needs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Bring the index up to date with the folder now.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like ragdown_recall or ragdown_read_doc, which are read/query tools, though the description doesn't explicitly name any sibling to disambiguate against.

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?

Explicitly gives both when-not and when: 'Changes are normally picked up automatically within a second; use this after bulk edits made while no server was running.' It also names the escalation path ('full: true to re-embed everything'), so the agent knows the default vs. thorough mode.

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