calibre_run_index_maintenance

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the effect (refreshes FTS) but omits critical details: whether the operation is safe (read-only vs. destructive), if it requires specific permissions, if it is synchronous or background, or if it can be run concurrently. The verb 'Start' hints at a possible long-running process, but this is not clarified.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Start'. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise for the complexity of the tool.

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 simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the primary action and effect. However, adding context about the asynchronous nature or the 'remote' aspect could improve completeness, but the output schema likely provides return details, so no major gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the action is self-contained.

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 tool starts an optional remote maintenance script that refreshes Calibre FTS. It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('remote maintenance script'), and the action ('refreshes Calibre FTS') distinguishes it from sibling tools like calibre_book_details or calibre_search_books, which focus on retrieval or search.

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 implies usage by calling the script 'optional', suggesting it is not required for normal operation. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calibre_index_status (for checking index health) or calibre_index_summary. No prerequisites or contextual triggers are mentioned.

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