Alcove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the BM25 algorithm, the global scope ('all projects'), and the side effect of enabling ranked search mode. However, it omits operational characteristics critical for an indexing operation: whether it is destructive, blocking, idempotent, or resource-intensive.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), technical implementation (sentence 2), usage trigger (sentence 3), and sibling relationship (sentence 4). Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Functionally complete regarding the index building mechanism and its role in the search ecosystem. However, given the potentially expensive nature of index rebuilding and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description should ideally disclose operational impact (e.g., duration, system load) to be fully 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Build or rebuild') and resource ('full-text search index'), explicitly scopes it to 'all projects', and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_project_docs' by explaining it enables the 'ranked' search mode in that tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Run this after adding or updating documents') and implies the relationship to search workflows. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use (e.g., 'do not run if index is current') or direct comparison to 'check_doc_changes' for determining necessity.

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