reindex_file_impl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions re-parsing and updating symbols, which implies mutation of the index, but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., compile_commands.json requirement is only in the schema), potential failures, or whether the operation is reversible. It also does not clarify if it is safe to call concurrently or if it has performance implications.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or how this tool relates to the sibling 'reindex_file'. The lack of contextual information about preconditions and consequences makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in detail. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it relies fully on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's action ('Re-parse') and resource ('a single source file') with a specific outcome ('update its symbols in the index'). It distinguishes from siblings by its scope ('single file') and the implementation suffix ('impl'), though the sibling relationship is not explicitly mentioned.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reindex_file' or 'reset_index'. The description only states what it does, not the context of use or any exclusions. The 'impl' suffix remains unexplained, so the intended audience or use case is unclear.

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