refresh_index

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation rebuilds the index and replaces the in-memory MCP cache, implying a destructive/replacement action. However, it does not explain side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is irreversible. Moderate transparency.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each providing distinct value. No filler or 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values or prerequisites. It mentions 'MCP cache' but does not clarify what happens if index doesn't exist or if source is invalid. Somewhat incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states verb ('Rebuild the selected index and replace the in-memory MCP cache') and resource (index). It also includes a specific use case ('Use after files change in a long-lived session'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'clear_index' and '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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('Use after files change in a long-lived session'), but does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools like 'clear_index' or 'search'. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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