Reindex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It explicitly reveals that rebuild drops all derivatives (destructive) and reconstructs from originals, clarifying that only usage heat is lost. Verify is disclosed as a non-destructive full re-hash audit that ignores the stat gate and reports drift—clear about side effects and behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the default mode, then succinctly explains the alternative. Each clause earns its place with no filler, and the structure (rebuild vs. verify) aids quick parsing.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: both modes, their side effects, the source of truth (originals), and what verify reports. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 coverage is 50% (store is described, verify is not), but the description compensates by explaining the verify mode and its behavior. It adds meaning to the verify boolean beyond the schema, while store's description is already provided. The description effectively fills the schema gap.

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 specifies two distinct operations (rebuild and verify) with specific resources (memory files, index/derivatives) and explicit outcomes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reindexing and auditing rather than memory operations like remember/recall, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides contextual usage guidance (rebuild for disaster recovery, verify for drift detection) but does not explicitly state when to avoid or prefer other tools. The 'disaster recovery' phrase implies appropriate timing, yet no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions exist.

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