rescan_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (re-scanning package.xml files, rebuilding the cache) and the performance rationale. It implies overwriting via 'rebuild' but does not detail failure modes or permissions. Still, the main side effect is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: first states action and scope, second gives the usage trigger and rationale. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 the purpose and trigger, but omits details about the optional `workspace_root` parameter and any return value or success/failure indication (no output schema exists). For a simple action, this is a noticeable gap.

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 only parameter, `workspace_root`, has no description in the schema and is not mentioned in the tool description at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not; the agent must infer meaning from the parameter name alone.

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 a specific verb ('Rebuild') and resource ('package index cache'), and explicitly scopes to 'all package.xml files' under a workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling listing/query tools (list_packages, etc.).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after pulling new source or after `vcs import` changes the set of packages'. It also explains why (index is not auto-refreshed for performance), implying when it is not needed.

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