memory_rebuild_fts

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

The description adds details beyond the annotations by mentioning the return value '{rebuilt: int}' and the reason for use, while the destructive and idempotent nature is already captured in annotations.

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, leading with the action and then providing context, with no extraneous detail.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its return value, which is sufficient for a simple maintenance operation; a note on potential side effects (e.g., temporary unavailability) would make it fully 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially covered; the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the empty schema implies.

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 specific action ('drop and rebuild the SQLite FTS5 virtual table') and the resource ('knowledge rows'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear condition for when to use the tool ('after migrations or content_type changes that the FTS triggers didn't see'), though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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