mcp_index_rebuild

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Force rebuild' implies a destructive or heavy operation, but no details on side effects, safety, permissions, or output behavior beyond the vague equivalence to another tool. The behavioral impact is underspecified.

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 extremely concise at 7 words, but it wastes the opportunity to add value. It is front-loaded but could be more informative without losing brevity.

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?

Given a simple tool with no parameters, the description minimally covers the purpose. However, it lacks details on return values (despite output schema existing) and fails to provide complete context for a rebuild operation. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist, and the coverage is 100%.

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 'Force rebuild of entire MCP index', clearly identifying the verb (rebuild) and resource (MCP index). However, it adds 'same as mcp_index_scan', equating it to a sibling without differentiating. This reduces clarity about when this tool is distinct.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like mcp_index_scan. The description merely states it is the same as a sibling, which could confuse agents about which to invoke.

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