memory_rebuild

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('rebuild the index') without mentioning side effects, destructiveness, performance impact, or any requirements, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's operational consequences.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the primary action and when to use it, but it is incomplete due to the missing parameter explanation and lack of behavioral details. The absence of an output schema reduces the need for return value documentation, but the parameter gap is significant.

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 description entirely omits the 'embeddings' parameter, which is the only parameter in the schema. The schema provides only type and default, with no description, so the agent has no way to understand what this flag controls or when to set it.

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 uses the specific verb 'rebuild' and identifies the resource as the 'local keyword and semantic index', clearly distinguishing it from search, retrieval, and capture operations among siblings. It conveys exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'after substantial note changes' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for maintenance after significant data modifications. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the condition is specific enough to guide usage.

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