reset_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Not read-only — permanently deletes the SQLite database and WAL files,' making the destructive nature unmistakable. It also notes that corrupt databases are handled gracefully, adding transparency about error behavior. This fully informs the agent about the tool's impact.

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 concise, using 8 lines total, with a clear high-level summary, a caution about safety, a dry-run workflow hint, and bullet-pointed parameter descriptions. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description documents the return value structure (dict with keys including action, message, etc.), which is critical for the agent to interpret results. It also covers edge cases (corrupt databases) and the recommended workflow (dry-run then re-index). This makes the tool fully usable without additional documentation.

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?

Both parameters (project_root and confirm) have schema descriptions that already explain auto-detection and dry-run behavior. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 starts with 'Delete the entire symbol index for a project,' which clearly states the verb ('delete') and the resource ('symbol index'). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among sibling tools, which are mostly for querying or analysis, not for destructive reset operations.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: call with confirm=False first as a dry-run, then call with confirm=True to execute, and re-index afterwards. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the destructive nature and dry-run suggestion imply that care is needed. The guidance is clear and actionable, earning a 4.

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