Reindex the vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits: the operation is incremental, and lore_* writes are already indexed so this call is unnecessary after them. However, it says nothing about what happens with a full reindex, whether the operation is safe or idempotent, cost/latency, or any locking or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the routing rule. Every clause earns its place, including the parenthetical examples that make the condition concrete.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and routing well. But it leaves the only parameter unexplained and provides no behavioral notes on what 'full' does, so an agent can invoke it correctly in the common case but not fully safely in the full-reindex case.

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?

There is one parameter, 'full', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The word 'Incrementally' faintly implies a non-full default, but the semantics of toggling 'full' (rebuild vs. incremental sync, cost, potential data effects) are left entirely undocumented.

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 pairs a specific verb ('incrementally sync') with a specific resource ('the markdown vault into the index'), and it names the sibling behavior it is not ('the lore_* write tools index their own writes'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it relates to the lore_* family without inspecting a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Call after writing files to the vault through anything OTHER than lore_* tools') and an explicit exclusion ('their content is searchable immediately without this'). The alternative cases (editor, another agent, plain fs writes) are enumerated, leaving nothing to inference.

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