rebuild

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context that the tool rebuilds derived data from source files, which aligns with destructiveHint=false and clarifies the safety of the operation. It does not describe side effects like overwriting existing indexes, but the non-destructive hint mitigates this need.

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 two short sentences: the first states the concrete action and source, the second states the exact usage scenario. There is no redundancy and no unrelated detail, so every word 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool does, what it consumes, and when to call it. No extra context is needed for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing left undocumented. The description mentions the source of reconstruction ('section files and document manifests'), which is behavior, not parameter detail. This fully satisfies the parameter semantics dimension.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Reconstruct'), the resource ('all index files'), and the input sources ('from section files and document manifests on disk'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search or retrieve, which query indexes, by focusing on rebuilding them.

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 sentence 'Use this to recover from index corruption' explicitly identifies the condition for invoking the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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