reindexar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it discloses that processing is incremental (only changed files) and that deletions are reflected via a deleted-count in the response, which signals a mutating, index-altering operation. It omits permission requirements, cost/duration, and whether the scan blocks or can be interrupted.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the most important fact (incremental processing) follows the core action immediately. The return-value sentence could arguably be trimmed since it partly duplicates what an output contract would carry, but it adds real value here given no output schema.

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 zero-parameter maintenance tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, its incremental behavior, and what it reports back. Remaining gaps (error behavior, whether sources must be configured first, runtime expectations) are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description is needed or missing on this dimension.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Vuelve a recorrer las fuentes configuradas y actualiza el índice') and adds a scope qualifier ('solo procesa archivos cambiados'). It is unmistakably distinct from the listed siblings (buscar_memoria, guardar_nota, leer_fragmento, listar_fuentes), though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this after sources change to refresh the index. There is no explicit 'use this when' / 'do not use this when' statement and no named alternative for cases where the agent wants to inspect instead of reindex.

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