knowledge_rebuild

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

Annotations provide only destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the source of truth stays the files, implying the operation does not modify source files. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as potential runtime cost, whether the old index is replaced atomically, or any side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The action and core constraint (source of truth stays files) are front-loaded, making the intent immediately clear.

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 simple rebuild operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the purpose and the invariant that source files are unchanged. It does not detail post-conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for correct 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 100%, with the 'project' parameter described as 'Project slug (auto-detected if omitted)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, meeting the baseline for fully covered schema.

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 action (rebuild), the resource (project's SQLite FTS5 + edges index), and the source (markdown). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search' and 'graph_related' by focusing on index regeneration rather than querying.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when the index needs rebuilding, but does not state exclusions or conditions. The phrase 'Source of truth stays the files' hints that files are authoritative, but this is not actionable guidance for selection.

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