refresh_index

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs full re-indexing for accuracy, returns success with file count, and is a backup for file watcher. Could mention whether the operation is synchronous or has performance implications, but current detail is sufficient.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear header, bullet list for usage, important notes, and return information. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, behavioral notes, and return value. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so no param info needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds value by explaining behavior, but no parameter semantics required.

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?

Description clearly states the tool refreshes the project index when files change, with a specific verb 'refresh' and resource 'project index'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_files and get_file_watcher_status by positioning itself as a manual complement to the automatic file watcher.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: file watcher disabled, after large operations, when find_files outdated, and for troubleshooting. Also notes when not to rely on it (when file watcher works) and gives actionable guidance for LLMs.

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