reindex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: re-embeds only changed notes, prunes stubs, and conditionally runs community detection only if something changed or if resolution is passed. This is good transparency, though it could mention safety (non-destructive) or permissions.

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 consists of two sentences, the first front-loading the main purpose and actions, the second detailing the optional parameter. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple sub-actions) and the absence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains behavior for both change and no-op scenarios. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., reindex summary), which would be helpful for the agent.

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 `resolution` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining that omitting it skips community detection on no-op reindexes, while passing a value forces a rerun and tunes granularity. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool re-indexes the vault and lists specific actions (re-embeds changed notes, prunes orphan stubs, re-runs community detection). The verb 're-index' and noun 'vault' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'index_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 description explains when to use the tool (re-indexing) and the effect of the `resolution` parameter, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., for status checks use 'index_status'). The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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