Reindex full-text search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope of the reindex and warns that it can be expensive, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., blocking, performance impact beyond cost) or whether the operation is reversible or asynchronous, leaving gaps.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action, specifies the affected event types, and adds a relevant warning—every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter trigger with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a key caveat. It could mention what the expected result or return value is, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly in most cases.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params, and there is nothing to penalize.

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 the action ('Trigger a reindex') and specifies the exact resources affected ('all searchable events' and the three event types). It distinctly describes a maintenance operation that has no siblings, so it is unambiguous.

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 implied but not explicit. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions. The warning about cost hints at caution but does not provide concrete guidance on appropriate scenarios.

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