refresh_index

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

Annotation Contradiction: annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, implying the tool does not modify state, but the description says it 'Re-syncs' and 'rebuilds everything from scratch,' which implies changing the local search index. The description also does not disclose side effects or impact of a full rebuild.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes usage trigger, duration, and parameter behavior without wasted 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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, expected duration, and parameter effect. It is mostly complete, but the readOnlyHint contradiction leaves ambiguity about whether the tool has side effects, which prevents a perfect score.

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 only parameter, full, has no description in the schema, but the description provides meaningful semantics: 'full=True rebuilds everything from scratch' and implies the default is a quick incremental refresh. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it does not explicitly describe false behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-sync the local search index with Apple Mail.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling mail/search tools and explains its maintenance role.

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?

'Run this if a very recent message is missing from search results' gives a clear, concrete trigger condition. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just 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.