code_search_reindex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'background' indicating asynchronicity and 'force a full reindex' implying destructive potential, but it omits details like whether an incremental reindex is available, idempotency, or cancellation behavior. It provides some useful context but is not comprehensive.

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 two short, focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Trigger a background re-index') and adds the optional force behavior succinctly. Every word earns 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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: it does not clarify what happens when forceFull is false (e.g., incremental indexing) nor mention the sibling code_search_status for checking reindex progress. These are minor gaps given the simplicity.

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%, and the forceFull parameter is fully documented in the schema ('clears existing vector database and rebuilds index from scratch'). The description's mention of 'force a full reindex' adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Trigger a background re-index of the repository') with a specific verb and resource. It also hints at the forceFull parameter. This distinguishes it from siblings like code_search, code_search_status, and code_search_guide, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the tool's purpose but lacks explicit context such as 'use after schema changes' or 'when index is stale'. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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