mindbase_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 burden. It clearly discloses the most important side effect: 'Always overwrites; never partial-merges.' It also previews the output shape, which helps an agent anticipate the result. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and the critical overwrite caveat are front-loaded, followed by a compact and useful output-shape hint.

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 one-parameter, no-required-parameter tool, the description provides the operation, the crucial overwrite behavior, and the return shape. The input schema covers the remaining parameter detail, so essentially nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the single optional projectId parameter is already fully documented by the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond that, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage without exceeding it.

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 states a clear action: 'Regenerate index.yaml by scanning the project tree.' It identifies the concrete resource and output, which is specific enough to stand alone. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource and verb are unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Regenerate' implies a stale or missing index, but the description never states a trigger condition, prerequisite, or which sibling tools should be considered instead.

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