reindex

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the description need not restate those. It adds useful scoping (local, downloaded papers), but it does not disclose the default behavior of clear_existing (default true) or potential side effects like deletion of the existing index before rebuild. This is a moderate addition beyond 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?

The entire description is a single sentence that directly states the action and scope without unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic function. However, it omits important context such as the default clear_existing behavior, expected use cases, and potential time cost, making it minimally adequate but lacking full completeness.

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 fully describes the only parameter, clear_existing, including its type and default value. The description adds no further parameter-level details, so it does not compensate beyond the schema's coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Rebuild' and identifies the resource 'local semantic index' for 'downloaded papers', which clearly defines the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_papers and semantic_search, which operate on the index rather than rebuild it.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after adding new papers) or contrast with other maintenance operations. Users are left to infer the appropriate context.

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