vmn_rebuild_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states a key safety property: 'objects are never modified,' which prevents an agent from fearing destructive side effects. It could add more detail about index replacement behavior, but it covers the most important operational concern.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, the source of data, and the safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter maintenance tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient operational context: what it rebuilds, from what data, and why it is safe. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without further information.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 and resource: 'Rebuild the BM25 inverted index from existing vault objects.' This clearly distinguishes it from read/search/status siblings like vmn_search or vmn_index_status, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 statement 'Safe to run at any time' gives explicit usage context and implies there are no scheduling or precondition constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to choose this over status or search tools.

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