b_index_codebase

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

Annotations already declare the tool non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that a reindex scans all files and updates the embeddings cache, which tells the agent what side effects to expect beyond the annotation flags.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Manually trigger a full reindex'), followed by the mechanism and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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, one-optional-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the action, the effect, and when it is useful, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully documents the single 'force' parameter with a clear description, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'full reindex' and 'even if files haven't changed' are consistent with the parameter, but the description itself does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Manually trigger a full reindex of the codebase.' It further clarifies the action by stating it will 'scan all files and update the embeddings cache,' making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like a_semantic_search or c_clear_cache.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful after large code changes or if the index seems out of date.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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