mcp_index_rebuild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Force rebuild' implies a destructive or resource-intensive operation, but no details about side effects, safety, or requirements are given. The tool's behavior remains opaque.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but borders on under-specification. It repeats the tool's name and claims equivalence to another tool without adding substantial structure or prioritization.

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 potentially disruptive operation like index rebuilding, the description lacks critical context about what 'rebuilding' entails, when it is necessary, and what consequences it has. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left underinformed.

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 and is 100% covered by the empty schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 the action (force rebuild) and the resource (entire MCP index), making the purpose clear. However, it mentions it's the same as mcp_index_scan, which is a sibling tool, but does not differentiate the two, causing potential confusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp_index_scan. The description simply states it is the same as mcp_index_scan, which is misleading and offers no contextual usage advice.

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