reindex_vault

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It implies a mutating operation ('rebuild', 'recreated') but does not explicitly disclose potential side effects like index locking, performance impact, or the fact that it modifies the index. This is a moderate transparency gap.

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?

Two succinct sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. No additional explanation of return values or edge cases is necessary.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (dry_run, require_daemon). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Rebuild the complete vault index') and differentiates it from sibling tools like reindex_note by emphasizing 'complete' and 'vault index'. It is unambiguous about the scope and purpose.

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?

Explicitly provides a clear 'when to use' scenario: 'after broad reorganizations or when the rebuildable index must be recreated.' While it doesn't mention alternatives, it gives actionable context, which is sufficient for guiding the agent.

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