rebuild_search_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses incremental-by-default behavior, the full=True wipe-and-rebuild mode, cross-library indexing, and the practical tradeoff about progress output for large libraries.

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 front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and is dense with useful behavior, usage, and parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes actionable information without filler.

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 complex operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers default behavior, parameter effects, performance characteristics, and when an alternative approach is preferable, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding how 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It explains both parameters: library_id scopes indexing to a single library and references list_libraries, while full controls incremental versus full rebuild. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action—rebuilding the full-text search index—and connects it to the exact scopes ('fulltext' and 'notes') of the sibling search_library tool. This makes the tool's role unmistakable and distinguishes it from other tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it is best for small incremental top-ups within a conversation, and for large libraries it recommends running 'python scripts/build_index.py' in a terminal instead. It also clarifies when to use library_id versus the default all-libraries behavior.

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