reindex

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

Annotations already disclose read-only (false), idempotent (true), and non-destructive (false) hints. The description adds that it targets the search database, but doesn't disclose any side effects like whether it clears the existing index or is expensive. It provides minimal extra context beyond the name.

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?

Single sentence of 8 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. No redundancy.

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 simple tool with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't discuss use cases, nor does it mention that it can be scoped. Given the annotations and schema, the description is complete enough for basic invocation, but lacks deeper context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, leaving the schema to explain the full and session_id 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 action (re-index) and the object (vault content) into a specific target (search database). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_thoughts, which query rather than rebuild the index.

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 implies this tool is used to update the search index after vault changes, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on when a full reindex vs session-specific reindex is appropriate, though that is covered by the parameter descriptions. With no exclusions mentioned, it gets a 3 for implied usage.

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