rebuild

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions calling fst-indexer, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., index unavailability, rebuilding time, reversibility). It lacks important context for a mutating 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It avoids fluff and conveys the purpose and process efficiently.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the 'what' and 'why'. However, it omits operational context such as when a rebuild should be performed, potential downtime, or prerequisites like the availability of fst-indexer. For a rebuild operation, this is a notable gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds context about the index rebuild without being able to explain any inputs.

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 explicitly states the action (Rebuild the FST index), the target resource (web-archive domain), and the outcome (archived content is searchable). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like web_search, archive_list, or archive_read.

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 implies the tool is used to rebuild the full-text index when archived content needs to be searchable via unified-history-mcp. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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