Rebuild VIPMP structured index

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

Annotations already declare idempotence and non-destructive nature. Description adds important behavioral context: ~60s cold cache, ~15-20s warm, and that it walks every page. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Concise yet thorough: main action in first sentence, use cases in bullet list, timing info at end. No wasted words; front-loaded with purpose.

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 zero parameters, output schema exists, and detailed annotations, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, behavioral traits, and performance. No gaps for a rebuild operation.

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?

No parameters (0), so schema coverage is 100%. Description compensates by explaining what the tool does and its performance characteristics, earning above baseline.

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?

Clearly states it rebuilds an index of endpoints, error codes, and schemas by walking the sitemap. Specifically names affected tools (list_vipmp_endpoints, etc.) and saves to a known location, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly gives three conditions for when to run: stale data, after refresh_vipmp_sitemap, or old baseline. While it doesn't list negative conditions, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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