refresh_search_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states that the first build decodes every message and takes a while, and that rebuild discards the index and decodes everything again, which communicates the costly and somewhat destructive nature of a rebuild. It could go further on side effects or performance expectations, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a clearly labeled usage rationale, and an Args section that explains the only parameter. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the key facts are 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all essential context: what the tool does, when it is needed, and what the rebuild flag means. The wording about the optional nature and the purpose of rebuilding makes this fully actionable for an agent.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter 'rebuild' in meaningful terms: it discards the index, decodes every message again, and is needed only to pick up edits older than the recent-edit window. This adds substantial decision-making value beyond the bare boolean schema definition.

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 a specific action ('Update the local search index') and a reporting behavior, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from search_messages, which maintains the index automatically, preventing confusion among sibling 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 explicitly says calling this tool is optional because search_messages keeps the index current, then gives concrete use cases: warming the index deliberately and forcing a full rebuild. This gives an agent clear conditions for when to invoke this tool versus relying on search_messages.

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