reindex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the incremental-by-default behavior, which is useful, but for an expensive forced re-scan it says nothing about cost, duration, whether the call blocks, or whether it invalidates existing cached results.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the parameter note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally cover what the re-scan affects (index state, other tools' results) and rough cost. It covers the action and the full flag but leaves the operational consequences unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'full' as a boolean meaning 'Rebuild everything (default: incremental).' The description restates this without adding format, default, or interaction details beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('re-scan') and resource ('the repository'), making the action clear. It lacks differentiation from siblings, though 'reindex' is fairly distinct in this set (save_note, repo_map, semantic_search) so the risk of confusion is low.

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 implies usage via 'Use full=true to rebuild the index from scratch,' which is a hint about when to choose full mode, but it never states when to call reindex at all versus relying on automatic indexing or other tools. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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