moodle_wiki_rebuild_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Rebuild' implies overwriting the existing index, but side effects like destructive replacement, error conditions on incomplete frontmatter, or return behavior are not disclosed.

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?

A single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. No filler or redundant wording; it earns its place despite being sparse.

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?

The core action and source are clear, but the description omits parameter semantics and usage context for three optional parameters. With no annotations and no parameter documentation, the tool is under-specified for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of 'out', 'course_id', or 'course_dir'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to supply arguments.

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 uses specific verb 'Rebuild' and names the exact resource '_wiki/INDEX.md' and data source 'filled card frontmatter'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_scaffold or wiki_status.

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 phrase 'from filled card frontmatter' implies the tool should be used after cards have been filled, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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