Build or rebuild the local semantic index from the live Everything database, enabling AI agents to find files by meaning instead of exact filename. Runs in background; poll status.
(Re)build the local semantic index from the live Everything database. Runs in the background unless wait=true (~3-7 min per million names on a laptop CPU); poll everything_semantic_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the job is long-running (3-7 min per million names), that it is asynchronous unless wait=true, and how to monitor it. It omits whether the existing index is unavailable during rebuild and whether the operation is idempotent/safe to interrupt.
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 dense sentences with zero filler; the async default and the wait override are front-loaded, and the polling pointer closes the loop.
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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema maintenance tool, the description covers action, timing, async behavior, and follow-up. Minor gaps remain around index availability during rebuild and failure/interruption semantics.
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 0% and the single 'wait' parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates by defining exactly what wait=true changes (foreground/blocking vs background) and giving a duration estimate. That is the key semantic an agent needs.
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+resource: (re)build the local semantic index, and names the source (live Everything database). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling everything_semantic_status, which it explicitly routes polling to.
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?
Explains the operational context: background by default, and points to everything_semantic_status for polling. It does not state when a reindex is warranted (e.g., index stale) or when not to run it, but the async workflow guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.