rag_reindex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether re-indexing is destructive, whether it requires special permissions, how long it takes, whether it blocks other operations, or what the output/return value is. 'Incrementally' hints at non-destructive behavior but is not explicit.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context; it is concise but under-specified.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter's effect, the operation's side effects, and the expected result. It does none of these. The sibling context (rag_search, rag_status) suggests this is part of a RAG pipeline, but the description does not connect to that workflow.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'force' parameter. It does not explain what 'force' does, when it should be true, or the difference between incremental and forced re-indexing. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean type.

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 states a specific verb ('re-index') and resource ('the vault'), and the word 'incrementally' adds some scope. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like rag_search or rag_status, and 'rebuildable derived index' is somewhat jargon-heavy without explaining what the index is used for.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the vault must already be indexed), when a force re-index is needed, or how this relates to rag_search or rag_status. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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