reindex_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose an important trait: incremental work ('only reprocesses files whose content changed'), which signals cost and safety. However, it says nothing about whether the operation blocks, how long it takes, concurrency safety, or permissions — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero structured coverage.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the trigger condition and the incremental guarantee. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema maintenance tool, the description covers action, trigger, and scope of reprocessing. What is missing is operational context (duration, blocking behavior), which would be genuinely useful given the absence of annotations, but the essentials are present.

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 takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 ('Rescan') plus resources ('docs folder', 'the index'), which is unmistakably a maintenance/reindex operation and thus clearly distinct from the read-only siblings search_docs and list_docs. An agent can identify what this does without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('Run after a git pull'), which is a real when-to-use signal rather than mere implication. It stops short of stating when NOT to run it or naming an alternative tool for index concerns.

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