spell_rebuild_vocabulary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool forces a rebuild (potentially expensive or destructive) and contrasts with lazy caching. However, it does not mention idempotency, blocking behavior, or side effects on concurrent operations.

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, each serving a purpose: first states action and version, second provides usage context. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. It explains when to call it and the lazy cache baseline. Missing return value info, but acceptable for a trigger tool.

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?

No parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context, compensating for the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool forces a rebuild of SpellChecker vocabulary and n-gram index. The verb 'rebuild' and resource 'vocabulary + n-gram index' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like spell_suggest and spell_vocabulary_size.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call after bulk entity churn; the lazy cache is otherwise correct for low-churn graphs.' This indicates when to use (after bulk churn) and implies when not (low-churn), but does not name specific alternative tools.

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