rebuild_search_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the destructive nature ('clear the existing search index'), the data source ('re-index all messages from chat.db'), and side effects ('update sync metadata'). It also explains the blocking vs. background execution modes. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are relevant for a destructive operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the initial statement, the three-step breakdown, the exclusion note, and the parameter/return explanations. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (destructive rebuild operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers the purpose, process, exclusions, parameter behavior, and return value context. The output schema handles return details, so the description doesn't need to explain return values further, making it well-rounded for the agent's needs.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does this excellently by documenting the single parameter 'background' with clear semantics: explaining the two modes (True for background thread with immediate return, False for blocking until complete) and linking it to progress tracking. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('rebuild the entire search index from scratch') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning what it does NOT do ('does NOT generate embeddings'). It provides a three-step breakdown of the process, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from other search-related tools.

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 provides when-not-to-use guidance ('does NOT generate embeddings. Use a separate tool for that') and implicitly suggests alternatives for related tasks (e.g., use other tools for embedding generation or checking progress). It also clarifies the tool's scope relative to siblings like 'search_index_status' or 'get_rebuild_progress' by detailing its destructive rebuild process.

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