Refresh Index

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

Description claims 'Refresh' which implies mutation of the in-memory index, yet annotations set readOnlyHint=true, creating a clear contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond what annotations already declare. The tool's side effects are not disclosed, and the refresh operation's impact on other tools is unknown.

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 with no filler words. Every word is necessary and front-loaded with the action. Efficient and direct.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'refresh' means operationally (e.g., reload from disk vs. reindex), whether it affects other tools, or what the output schema provides. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description clearly states the tool refreshes an in-memory index for the configured local root. It uses a specific verb ('Refresh') and resource ('in-memory opaque path index'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like redctx_read or redctx_search, though the maintenance nature is implied.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. Sibling tools like redctx_list or redctx_doctor serve different purposes, but the description offers no comparative context.

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