refresh_vault_index

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 does state a key guarantee ('never modifies source notes'), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose what it actually modifies (the index), potential side effects, concurrency behavior, error conditions, or whether permissions are required. The description provides one behavioral fact but omits many others that an agent would need for safe invocation.

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 short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and follows with a critical guarantee. It is concise and well-structured, though it could be slightly expanded to cover the parameter without losing brevity.

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 there is an output schema, return values are not the issue. However, the tool has an unexplained parameter and no usage guidance. For a simple tool, the lack of parameter semantics and usage context makes it incomplete. The agent knows what the tool does but not when or how to control it, leaving important gaps.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'force' parameter at all. An agent cannot infer what 'force' does (e.g., whether it forces a full re-index or overrides caching). The name hints at forcing, but without an explanation, the parameter semantics are completely opaque. The description adds no meaning beyond the 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: 'Incrementally index changed Markdown notes.' This specifies the verb (index), the resource (Markdown notes), and the incremental nature. It also adds a distinct guarantee ('never modifies source notes') that separates it from mutation tools. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like vault_status, search_vault, and read_vault_note, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not say 'use this to update the search index' or mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The agent must infer that refresh_vault_index is for maintaining the index, but no explicit direction is given.

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