rebuild

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that it 'Calls fst-indexer to rebuild the full-text index', which is helpful, but it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting the existing index, potential downtime, or whether the operation is long-running or safe to invoke repeatedly. For a rebuild operation, this is a notable gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or repetition. Every sentence contributes to explaining what the tool does and why.

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-param tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and outcome. However, it omits operational context such as whether this replaces the current index, how long it might take, or any prerequisites (e.g., fst-indexer availability). Given that this is a rebuild operation, slightly more context would be useful.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It gains a baseline 4 because there is nothing to compensate for; the schema is empty and no parameter documentation is required.

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'), the resource ('the FST index for the web-archive domain'), and the purpose ('so archived content is searchable'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_list/archive_read (which read) and web_search (which searches).

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 phrase 'so archived content is searchable' implies the tool is used to make archived content searchable, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like needing to run this after content updates. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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