reindexar

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the rebuild is explicit and confined to the in-memory index, which is meaningful context. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, duration, or whether this is required before using sibling search tools.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes only the necessary scope ('en memoria') and timing ('tras editar el proyecto').

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 zero-parameter maintenance command with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is rebuilt, where it is rebuilt, and when to call it. Missing return/status details are a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and lack of structured output.

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 zero properties and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; the zero-parameter baseline applies.

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 a specific verb ('Reconstruye') and a specific resource ('el índice en memoria'), and adds a clear trigger ('tras editar el proyecto'). It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so differentiation relies on the action itself rather than a direct comparison.

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 gives a clear usage context: run it after editing the project. It does not state when-not-to-use it or name alternatives, but the trigger condition is concrete enough for an agent to understand when this tool is relevant.

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