rescan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does: re-scans repos from a config file, rebuilds TF-IDF edges, and invalidates caches. It mentions 'No arguments; zero configuration' which clarifies operational simplicity. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects like performance impact or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the primary use case and then detailing the actions. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (index refresh with multiple actions) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavior well, but lacks details on output (e.g., success confirmation or error messages) and potential limitations like execution time or prerequisites.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'No arguments; zero configuration,' which reinforces the parameterless nature beyond what the schema indicates, helping the agent understand there are no optional or hidden parameters.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Refresh', 'Re-scans', 'rebuilds', 'invalidates') and resources ('Ariadne index', 'TF-IDF token edges', 'cached DB handles'). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining when to use it versus query_chains or expand_node, which return stale_warnings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this when query_chains or expand_node returned a stale_warning, or after you know the user's code has changed.' It provides clear alternatives by naming specific sibling tools and scenarios for usage.

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