reindex

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms idempotence ('safe to re-run') and adds that it mutates the index, explains postprocess behavior (what each level does), and discloses return structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and efficient: starts with purpose, then usage guidance, parameter details, idempotence note, and return format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description includes the exact return JSON structure. It covers parameters, behavior, usage context, and caveats (like preferring register_edit for single files). This is comprehensive for a tool with good annotations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds further meaning by explaining the postprocess flag's three levels in detail (full/minimal/none and their effects on speed and processing), which goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 it triggers (re)indexing of a project/subdirectory and mutates the local index. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'register_edit' for single-file updates, making its purpose 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?

Explicit usage guidance: use after major file changes, prefer register_edit for single-file updates. Also details the postprocess flag levels, providing clear context on when to use each option.

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