wiki_rebuild_fts

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so 'Safe to repeat' largely restates structured data, but the description adds real context: the index is derived from on-disk pages, and the call returns a page count. It does not disclose rebuild cost/duration or any auth requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight clauses with zero filler; the purpose and return value are front-loaded and the usage restriction follows. Nothing can be trimmed without losing signal.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity maintenance tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, safety, and triggering conditions. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of rebuild cost or failure modes), so it is essentially complete.

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 100% and the single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level information. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('rebuild') and resource ('the wiki full-text index from the pages on disk'), plus the return value. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wiki_search, wiki_lint, or wiki_dedup, which act on different aspects of the wiki.

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?

Explicitly scopes when to use it ('only when wiki_search misses pages you know exist') and gives a concrete trigger ('after files were edited directly'). It even names the alternative tool (wiki_search) and the condition under which that alternative fails.

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