Single tool 'reindex' has a clear, action-oriented name and a substantive description (145 chars) explaining what it does and its recovery mechanism. However, the input schema is minimal (only 'dry_run' boolean with basic description), and critically, there is NO documented output schema visible in the source. The tool performs a significant write operation but lacks error handling guidance, recovery instructions, or structured output documentation. No tool annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are present. The server exposes only one tool with limited parameter depth, making it difficult to assess broader composition patterns.

• Document the output schema for reindex: specify what fields are returned (e.g., documents_processed, chunks_created, graph_mentions_updated, status, errors). Include example response structure.
• Add error handling guidance: 'If reindex fails mid-operation, the reindex_in_progress marker prevents duplicate runs. Call reindex again to resume. If marker is stale, manually clear it via [recovery tool/procedure].'
• Add destructiveHint annotation to the tool definition to signal that this operation modifies the knowledge base state.
• Expand dry_run documentation: 'When dry_run=true, returns a report of what would be reindexed (document count, chunk count, graph changes) without mutating the database. Use this to preview impact before committing.'
• Consider adding optional parameters for scope control: model_id (reindex only documents using a specific embedding model), dimension (reindex only if embedding dimension changed), or document_filter (reindex subset by tag/type).