Rebuild VIPMP structured index

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: it mentions side effects (saves to cache file), execution time estimates (60s cold, 15-20s warm), and the rebuild process (walking pages). No contradiction with annotations (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive).

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?

Efficiently structured: one sentence for what it does, a bulleted list for when to use it, and a sentence for time estimate. No unnecessary words.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers behavioral intent, usage conditions, and performance expectations. The agent knows exactly when and why to use this tool.

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, so the schema provides no constraints. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it does compensate by explaining the tool's operation. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.

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 the tool rebuilds a pre-extracted index by walking sitemap pages, specifying what it contains (endpoints, error codes, etc.) and the output file. Distinguishes itself from siblings like list_vipmp_endpoints and refresh_vipmp_sitemap.

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 lists three specific conditions when to run (stale data, after sitemap refresh, old baseline), which directly helps an AI agent decide when to invoke this tool rather than alternatives.

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