rag_index_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fetch-and-index behavior, the schema hashing short-circuit, and the return dictionary details. It also notes the automatic invocation on connect_catalog. It does not mention potential side effects like clearing previous index, but 're-index' implies overwriting.

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 tightly written with three short passages, each serving a purpose: behavior, manual-use context, and return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains what it does, when to call it manually, the internal optimization (hashing), and what the returned statistics contain. No important aspect is left unexplained.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no compensation is needed.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Re-index the connected catalog's schema for RAG search.' It clearly explains the action (fetching and indexing schema) and distinguishes from sibling RAG tools by focusing on schema indexing rather than search, ingestion, or status.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: states it happens automatically on connect_catalog, so manual invocation is only needed after schema changes (creating tables, adding columns, creating features). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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