reindex_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether rebuilding is destructive, safe to run concurrently, or requires any permissions. The agent gets no information about side effects or operational impacts.

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 extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but at the cost of missing critical information. It is front-loaded with the verb, but every word is earned. A slightly longer description would improve value without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks explanation of the 'force' parameter and does not provide enough context for a maintenance operation that could be impactful. The description is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 one parameter, 'force', with a boolean type and default false, but the description does not mention it or explain its semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 'Rebuild local memory indexes' clearly states the verb (rebuild) and the resource (local memory indexes). It distinguishes from siblings like read_memory or search_memory because rebuilding is a maintenance operation. However, it lacks detail on what indexes specifically are being rebuilt or why.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_hygiene. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow. An agent would have no context for selecting it.

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