reindex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a rebuild operation and that the filesystem is the source of truth, implying it overwrites existing index state. However, it doesn't state side effects beyond rebuilding (e.g., whether the operation blocks, is destructive to unlinked context, or the expected duration/cost). With zero annotations, a 3 is reasonable — some transparency added but not deep.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero wasted words. The intent, the trigger conditions, and the data-model principle are all conveyed efficiently. Front-loaded with the core action first.

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 the essential information: what it does, when to run it, and the source-of-truth model. It doesn't elaborate on expected return/output, but an output schema exists to carry that burden. Slightly more detail on cost/impact could push this to 5, but it's largely 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?

There are 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (nothing to document). The baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the operation accomplishes (rebuild from markdown), even though there are no parameters requiring elaboration.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Rebuild the SQLite + FTS5 index from markdown files on disk.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings — notably from refresh_source and search — by identifying the full-reindex operation on the index built from markdown files. It names both the technology involved (SQLite + FTS5) and the source of truth (filesystem).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after manual edits on disk, or if the index seems stale.' It also clarifies the underlying model ('Filesystem is the source of truth'), implicitly warning against expecting the index itself to be authoritative. This distinguishes it from refresh_source (likely incremental) as the heavier, manual-fallback reindex.

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