memo_reindex

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context: 'Writes only derived index state; markdown remains the source of truth.' It also explains the difference between errors (failures) and skipped (deliberate skips), which is important for understanding the tool's behavior. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise (three short paragraphs) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence serves a purpose: the action, the non-destructive nature, usage context, force explanation, and error semantics. No fluff or redundancy.

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 covers all essential behavioral aspects: what it does, when to use it, the force parameter, and the error/skip distinction. An output schema exists (as noted in context signals), so return details are likely covered there. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is complete enough; could mention potential side effects (e.g., performance) but not necessary.

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 single parameter 'force' is fully described in the schema with its purpose and example ('e.g. after an embedder model swap'). The description's additional note '`force` reprocesses records even if memo thinks they are current' adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's coverage (100%). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the semantics well.

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 action: 'Rebuild memo's searchable index from the markdown vault.' This is a specific verb (rebuild) with a clear resource (searchable index) and source (markdown vault). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memo_search (which searches) and memo_lint (which checks), making it clear this is about rebuilding the index.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Use after hand-editing vault files or changing indexing behavior.' It also clarifies the force flag and error interpretation. While it doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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