Rebuild VIPMP structured index

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

The description discloses the actual side effect—writing to a specific cache file path—and the performance profile (60s cold, 15-20s warm). This goes beyond the annotations by explaining why readOnlyHint is false and what the idempotent rebuild actually does.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by tightly scoped bullets and a timing note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the when-to-use guidance easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, why an agent would run it, how long it takes, and what it modifies. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description appropriately contains no irrelevant parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: rebuild the pre-extracted index of endpoints, error codes, status codes, and schemas by walking the sitemap. It clearly identifies what the tool produces and where it saves the result, distinguishing it from related sitemap and cache tools.

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 'Run this if' section explicitly lists the three concrete conditions for using the tool, including stale structured data, after refreshing the sitemap, and when the baseline index is outdated. It gives clear decision criteria with no ambiguity.

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