rebuild_doc_crosslinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose if this operation is destructive, if it overwrites the existing file, or if it requires specific permissions. The description only states what it rebuilds but not the consequences or safety profile.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action and target.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the broader context, e.g., when to run this, if it is idempotent, or if it requires network access. The current description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.

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 no parameters, and the schema covers 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the output file path, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to elaborate.

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 'Rebuild' and identifies the exact resource 'docs ↔ Postman crosslink index' and output file 'docs/crosslinks.json'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_crosslink_gaps' which only lists gaps.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'list_crosslink_gaps' might be a prerequisite or that rebuild might be needed after sync operations. Missing when-not-to-use or context.

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