reindex_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does indicate this is a 'force full' destructive-ish rebuild scoped to a project, which is meaningful, but it omits whether the operation is blocking, whether it can run while the project is in use, or reset semantics.

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?

One tight sentence with no waste; the operation is front-loaded and reasons are compactly delivered in a parenthetical.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with no annotations, a destructive full rebuild, and ambiguous 'path', the description should say more about safety and what 'path' means to be complete.

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?

Only one parameter (path) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not clarify what 'path' refers to (project root, project id, config path). With a single parameter the baseline is 4 per rules, but the ambiguous 'path' semantics and absent description warrant a modest downgrade to 3.

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?

States a specific verb (force full rebuild) and resource (project's index), and parenthetically gives the precise conditions that motivate it. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_project or semantic_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 parenthetical lists trigger conditions (chunker/model change, suspected corruption), which is explicit when-to-use guidance. It lacks any when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it falls 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.