Codebase Index Refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the state effect (a local index rebuild that other codebase tools depend on) and the return contents, but says nothing about cost, runtime, idempotency, or what happens to the prior index. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation-style 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The trigger condition is stated immediately after the action, which is the right order for an agent scanning for relevance.

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 zero-parameter local reindex, the description covers purpose, trigger, and return shape. Because an output schema exists, the return-value sentence is mildly redundant but not harmful. The only substantive omission is the lack of any cost or safety context, which is acceptable for this benign operation.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 and resource: 'Rebuild the local codebase module index.' This clearly separates it from read-oriented codebase siblings like codebase_search or codebase_module_list, which merely consume the index. It stops short of naming a specific sibling it is not, so it is differentiated by implication rather than explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: call it after installing, enabling or creating modules. This tells the agent when the tool is needed and why. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, so it does not reach the top band.

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