pce_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is diagnostic and read-only in nature, and it lists what information is returned. However, it does not describe the output format, whether the tool performs any side effects, or what happens if the service is unavailable. The diagnostic framing is useful but the behavioral detail is thin.

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 compact and well-structured with clear labeled sections: Purpose, When to use, Best practice, and Avoid. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what the tool does, when to call it, and when not to call it. The only gap is the lack of detail about the exact shape or format of the returned status, but since there is no output schema, a bit more specificity about return values would make it fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage with an empty properties object). The description adds value by explaining what the returned status contains, which is the closest analog to parameter semantics for a no-parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current service and project status'), and enumerates the exact contents: initialization phase, index statistics, staging area, and warnings. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly saying it is not a code understanding tool, which helps an agent tell it apart from pce_query and pce_impact.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: confirm PCE availability, check whether the index has been built, or diagnose init/query/impact/sync issues. It also gives a best practice ('When unsure whether to call init or sync first, check status') and an explicit avoid statement ('Do not use this as a code understanding tool'), which routes the agent away from inappropriate alternatives.

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