knowledge_rebuild

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false; the description adds the genuinely useful trait that the index is derived and the markdown files remain the source of truth, so a rebuild cannot lose content. It stops short of disclosing duration, cost, or what happens on partial failure.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the safety note. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter maintenance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the key safety guarantee, but omits the operational context an agent needs: when to invoke it, expected runtime, and whether the index is usable during/after the rebuild.

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%, so both parameters (project slug, workspace_path) are already documented in the schema, including auto-detection and the cwd fallback. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so baseline 3 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?

Specific verb ('Rebuild') plus a precisely named resource ('SQLite FTS5 + edges index from markdown') — an agent knows exactly what artifact is produced and from what input. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from index-adjacent siblings like knowledge_viz, link, extract, or graph_related.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this versus alternatives (e.g. after markdown edits, or instead of re-running 'link'/'extract'). The reader must infer that a stale index is the trigger. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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