rebuildCatalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it writes server-local data, never the inspected database, and returns a distributable catalog file. This clarifies side effects and scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The core action and key constraints are front-loaded, and the safety clarification ('writes only server-local data, never the inspected database') is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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?

The description is complete for a catalog-rebuild tool: it covers purpose, side effects, and output. It does not detail the return format, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. It could mention that the connection parameter is required, but the schema already marks it required, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that 'schemas' is optional and defaults to configured scope, which is useful, but it does not add much beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Create or refresh') and a specific resource ('persistent local catalog'), and distinguishes it from the inspected database by clarifying it writes only server-local data. It also names the key outputs (metadata capture, usage index rebuild, distributable catalog file), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like usageCatalogStatus or invalidateUsageCatalogCache.

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 explains when to use it ('for offline/repeated metadata and usage lookups') and what it does not do ('never the inspected database'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the listed siblings.

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