rebuild_vectors

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It discloses a specific behavior (re-embedding missing memories) and the triggering scenario, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether it can be safely run multiple times. This is a moderate disclosure, enough to understand the core action but lacking deeper behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the main action ('Re-embed active memories missing from the vector index') and adds a useful parenthetical that explains the repair intent. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), so the description covers the core action and a likely trigger ('failed batch embedding'). However, it does not mention prerequisites, success verification, or whether manual intervention is appropriate, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema imposes no information burden. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose, though it does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 a specific action ('Re-embed active memories missing from the vector index') and adds the purpose ('repairs a failed batch embedding'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'recall' by focusing on index repair, not memory creation or retrieval.

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 implies the tool is used after a batch embedding failure, providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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