reindex_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that force deletes existing index, but does not explicitly state that reindexing modifies the shared index or any prerequisites/permissions. Some behavioral detail provided, but not comprehensive.

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?

Concise purpose line followed by structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no repetition of schema types.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return value, and a usage cue. Since no annotations and no sibling differentiation beyond purpose, it could explicitly state side effects ('modifies stored index') but this is implied by the verb. Mostly complete.

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?

Description's Args section explains each parameter beyond the schema: project_path is an absolute path, project_name names the collection, and force deletes existing index before reindexing. Schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), so this fully compensates.

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 uses a specific verb 'Re-index' with a clear resource 'project', and explicitly notes usefulness after major code changes. This distinguishes it from sibling read/search tools like search_codebase and get_files.

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?

States context for use ('useful after major code changes'), which implies when to use it. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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