reindex_stale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the detection method (mtime comparison) and the return value (count of stale files re-ingested), which goes beyond a generic restatement. It could mention potential side effects or state changes more explicitly, but overall it provides meaningful insight into the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return value and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the what (re-ingests changed files), the when (index out of date), the mechanism (mtime), and the expected response (count). This is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently, especially given the sibling tool context.

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, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the tool's operation and output, adding no irrelevant parameter details.

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 clearly states the specific action (re-ingest), the target resource (files with changed disk contents), and the detection mechanism (mtime comparison). This distinguishes it from siblings like reindex_all, which likely re-ingests everything, and ingest_file, which targets a specific file.

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?

The description explicitly provides a use case: 'Use when you know files have been modified but the index is out of date.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusionary conditions, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to make an informed choice.

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