vault_reindex

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description adds that the reindex is 'incremental' and scoped. However, it does not disclose execution behavior such as whether the operation is async, what happens to stale entries, or what the return/confirmation looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys action, scope, and parameter semantics in minimal space, appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 tool with one optional parameter and annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits practical details like path format, async behavior, and how to verify the reindex result. Since there is no output schema, some of that burden falls on the description.

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 carries the parameter burden. It clarifies that the single `path` parameter selects one note while null/omission means the entire vault, which is essential. It does not specify the path format (relative path, note name, ID), so it stops short of a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('incremental reindex'), and clearly delimits scope: one note or the entire vault. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like vault_index_status or search.

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 scope guidance ('one note or the entire vault') implies when to use it, but there is no explicit condition like 'when the index is stale' and no comparison with alternatives such as vault_index_status. The usage context is present but left mostly implicit.

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