reindex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: background execution, incremental default with mtime/content hash skipping, purging of deleted files, folder limiting, force rebuild semantics, and the return value. This is comprehensive and exceeds the minimum.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by contextual usage, parameter explanations, and return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 description covers trigger conditions, change detection behavior, folder scoping, force usage, and return format. Even though an output schema exists, the added return value description is helpful. It is complete for a background maintenance tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'folder' limits to a registered folder (path as shown by list_folders), and 'force=true' rebuilds every file from scratch. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 tool's function: 'Refresh the index: pick up new, changed, and deleted files.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like index_status (status) and list_folders (listing).

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use when documents changed on disk since they were indexed.' It also references index_status for tracking and explains the folder/force options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for the same action, so it falls just short of a 5.

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