refresh_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool rebuilds the index and replaces the cache, implying a destructive modification, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action and primary use case. However, it omits details like what 'selected index' means, whether the operation is synchronous, and what the return state (e.g., success indication) might be.

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% with both parameters described ('Saved profile to use for source defaults' and 'Git URL or local path'), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, not explaining how the parameters affect the rebuild process.

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 action ('Rebuild the selected index') and resource, and adds context about replacing the cache. It distinguishes from siblings like clear_index by implying a rebuild rather than a clear, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 gives a specific usage scenario ('Use after files change in a long-lived session'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings (e.g., clear_index).

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