docshelf_rebuild_index

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe reuse. The description adds context by noting it regenerates from on-disk state, which is consistent with annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral insight beyond the structured fields.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and target, and the second provides a use case. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It could optionally mention that INDEX.md is overwritten, but the idempotent and non-destructive annotations imply this is safe. The description is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 already contains a description for 'shelf_path' ('Path to the shelf root directory.'), which fully explains the parameter. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to this parameter. Since schema coverage is 0% (description does not mention parameters), but the schema itself is descriptive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 regenerates INDEX.md from the current on-disk shelf state. The verb 'Regenerate' and the resource 'INDEX.md' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docshelf_add_document and docshelf_search by focusing on index reconstruction.

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 explicitly says 'Useful after manual edits to docs/ or .docshelf.json', providing a clear scenario for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the implied context is sufficient given the tool's specific purpose. No alternative is needed as it's the only index rebuild tool.

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