refresh_index

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries extra weight: it discloses idempotency ('safe to call repeatedly'), eviction of stale chunks, and a performance caveat on large corpora. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation set, though it omits auth/permission requirements.

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 tight sentences: the operation is front-loaded, then idempotency, then the performance caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core mutation semantics and safety. It is only slightly incomplete in leaving the full_rebuild flag entirely undocumented, which matters for a rebuild tool.

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% and the single parameter full_rebuild is never mentioned in the description. An agent cannot tell what a full rebuild changes versus the default incremental (false) behavior, nor what the tradeoff is, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource chain ('walk the configured root directory', 'chunk every text file', 'embed + index all chunks'), which clearly distinguishes a whole-index rebuild from the per-file sibling refresh_file. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the index-status tool, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives operational guidance ('safe to call repeatedly', 'may be slow on large corpora') but never says when to prefer this over refresh_file or to check get_index_status first. Usage context is implied through scope rather than explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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