Refresh the index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the incremental nature ('only changed files are re-parsed') and the fact that tools auto-refresh, which informs the agent that this is an exceptional maintenance action rather than a routine one.

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 convey the mechanism, scope, rarity, and necessity. Every word earns its place, and the key guidance ('Rarely needed') is positioned after the core behavior without clutter.

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 maintenance tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, how it works, and when it should be used. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 coverage is effectively complete. The description adds meaningful context by implying the refresh uses the git history rather than requiring any input, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('refresh') with a clear resource ('index') and explains the mechanism ('git-based refresh'). It is immediately distinguishable from the query-oriented sibling tools like get_map and find_symbol.

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 tells the agent when not to use the tool: 'Rarely needed — tools auto-refresh.' This gives clear context that manual invocation is usually unnecessary, though it does not name specific alternatives for when manual refresh would be appropriate.

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