reindex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, prerequisites beyond the trigger, or what the output looks like. The term 'rebuild' implies potential cost but no details are given.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential information and 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its intended use. However, it lacks any notes on the operation's potential duration, side effects, or assumptions, which leaves some contextual gaps for an agent to assess.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. There is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema, and the schema is complete with an empty parameters object.

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' with the resource 'index' and adds the context 'after mirroring new notebooks or references.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like corpus_status or describe_material.

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 'after mirroring new notebooks or references' gives a clear condition for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the requirement is well implied.

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