rebuild_embeddings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'Rebuild all' behavior, the 'Empty = all' default, and the return dict with errors. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing embeddings), required permissions, or performance impact, which is a gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 well-structured with an Args section and Returns section. It is compact, with every line adding value. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers invocation (parameter format, defaults) and expected result (success, processed count, errors). It is complete given the tool's simplicity and the available sibling context.

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 input schema only describes 'source_types' as 'source_types parameter'. The description adds critical semantics: 'Comma-separated types to rebuild (item,decision,update). Empty = all'. This provides format, allowed values, and default behavior, exceeding what the schema offers.

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 states 'Rebuild all embeddings for the current project' with a specific verb (rebuild) and resource (embeddings). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all siblings, none of which deal with rebuilding embeddings or similar maintenance operations.

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 provides clear context: it applies to the current project and accepts optional source_types. While it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, the unique purpose (rebuilding embeddings) makes the usage context obvious and no exclusions are needed.

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