gc_rebuild_fts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently flags this as a maintenance/emergency operation rather than a routine read, implying it could disrupt service or take time. The warning about severity of use ('not a daily tool') is valuable behavioral context. It doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., index downtime, rebuild duration), but does reasonably communicate that this isn't a safe routine operation.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the action, the second gives the triggering condition, the third adds the operational caution. Front-loaded and efficient with every sentence earning 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?

This is a simple maintenance tool with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is nearly complete for the agent's needs. It explains what triggers use and flags it as non-routine. It could mention whether results are returned or confirm the operation, but for a fire-and-forget maintenance tool the gaps are minor.

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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object). With no parameters to document, there's nothing the description needs to add. The description correctly focuses on usage guidance rather than pseudo-documenting nonexistent parameters. This is a clean baseline-4 scenario, and since there are literally zero parameters to explain, a 5 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a clear purpose: emergency rebuild of the memory-bank FTS5 index, used when recall/search returns stale results. The verb 'rebuild' plus the 'FTS5 index' resource is specific and clearly distinct from siblings like gc_recall, gc_retain, and gc_find. It loses a point for not naming an alternative tool that would serve the stale-results scenario, but it does distinguish itself functionally.

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?

Description gives explicit when-to-use context: 'when recall/search is returning stale results despite facts existing in the bank.' It also frames it as 'a maintenance operation, not a daily tool,' which imparts an important usage qualifier. It doesn't name specific alternative tools to use instead, but the caution against routine use is genuinely useful guidance.

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