b_index_codebase

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent operation (destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies that this is a 'full reindex' that 'scans all files' and 'updates the embeddings cache', which clarifies the scope and impact. It doesn't mention performance implications or rate limits, but adds meaningful behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a brief explanation and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's complexity (a reindex operation with one parameter) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and usage context well, but lacks details on output (no output schema) or potential side effects like performance impact. However, with annotations providing key behavioral hints, it's sufficient for most use 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'force' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('manually trigger a full reindex of the codebase') and the resource ('codebase'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'c_clear_cache' (which clears cache) or 'a_semantic_search' (which searches). It explains what the reindex does ('scan all files and update the embeddings cache'), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 on when to use this tool ('useful after large code changes or if the index seems out of date'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., compared to 'd_check_last_version' for checking index status), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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