Пересобрать материалы

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

The description discloses that the tool only queues materials for re-parsing ('ставит в очередь') and reveals a significant default behavior: 'Без параметра document пересобирается вся база' (without document, the entire base is rebuilt). This complements the annotations, which already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-idempotent; no contradiction exists.

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 only two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage context and the document-omission default — every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, motivation, and default scope well. It does not explain the detailed effects on existing fragments or the final result of the reindex, but the queue semantics and full schema coverage make it sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by specifying that omitting 'document' triggers a whole-base reindex, which is not stated in the schema itself.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ставит материалы в очередь на повторный разбор' (puts materials in queue for re-parsing). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling knowledge tools, which list, save, search, or delete materials.

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 explicit trigger conditions: 'Нужно после смены размера куска или подключения к ИИ-сервису' (needed after changing chunk size or connecting to an AI service), and explains why old fragments remain stale. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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