reindex

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the concrete maintenance steps and 'GC' hints at mutation, but it omits whether the operation is blocking, how expensive or long-running it is, and whether it should be avoided during active workloads — material gaps for a database-wide maintenance operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the operation and its sub-steps come first, followed immediately by the scoping rule. Every clause carries information.

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 low-complexity, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. The remaining hole is operational impact (duration, locking, permissions) which matters for a whole-database REINDEX but is not addressed.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Optional table name. Empty/omit = REINDEX entire database.' The description restates that behavior rather than adding format, naming, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('engine REINDEX maintenance') and even enumerates the sub-operations (analyze + compact + GC), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling tool offers maintenance, so confusion is unlikely.

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?

'Omit table for the whole database; pass table for one table' gives clear scope guidance for the parameter. However, it never says when to choose this tool (e.g. after bulk loads or deletes) or whether there are preconditions, costs, or times to avoid running it.

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