rag_index_build

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Build/rebuild,' which hints at a mutating operation, but it does not disclose that a rebuild likely overwrites an existing index, whether it is incremental or full, what side effects occur, or any requirements like an active session. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that the conciseness comes at the cost of necessary detail, making it more under-specified than concisely complete.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and completely undocumented parameters, this description leaves too much to inference. It does not cover prerequisites, side effects, or the relationship between source and snapshot, even though an output schema exists to cover return values. The overall context is insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only the phrase 'for a source or snapshot,' which tells the agent that either parameter is relevant but does not explain the difference, mutual exclusivity, behavior when both are set, or accepted formats. With three undocumented optional parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Build/rebuild') and resource ('SQLite/FTS RAG index'), and scopes it to 'a source or snapshot,' which maps to the two main parameters. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like rag_query or rag_snapshot_create because no other sibling has the build/rebuild verb, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that you call it when you need to build or rebuild an index, but the description does not help an agent decide between it and related rag_* tools or indicate when a rebuild is appropriate.

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