rebuild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool rebuilds (a mutation), but fails to mention side effects, potential downtime, whether the operation is reversible, or performance implications. This is insufficient for an agent to assess the risk of invocation.

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 two sentences with a clear Args section, front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks behavioral disclosures and usage guidance. It could be considered sufficient for a trivial tool, but the lack of side-effect documentation is a notable gap. The presence of an output schema aids but is not shown.

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 schema has no descriptions, and the description compensates by explaining the 'domain' parameter: 'Domain to rebuild, or "all" for all configured domains.' This adds crucial meaning, clarifying the default value and the special 'all' option, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 'FST indexes' for 'configured domains', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search, read, and list_domain. The action is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for rebuilding indexes but does not mention exclusions or preconditions. The one-line purpose is clear, but there is no direction about when a rebuild is necessary or how to check current index state.

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