Index status

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

The description thoroughly explains the behavior of the coverage report and its limitations, but annotations declare destructiveHint: true while the description clearly describes a read-only status operation ('Get the indexing status'). This direct contradiction makes the tool's safety profile ambiguous, earning a score of 1.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence delivers substantive information about the report's contents, caveats, and usage. The structure is logical and uses clear punctuation to separate concepts like 'parse_partial', 'skipped', and 'not_indexed'. No wasteful repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive explanation of the returned status report: counts, paths, git context, and detailed explanations of coverage categories. It also covers edge cases, limitations, and next steps, making it highly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the 'verbose' parameter ('Include the git context block... only needed when debugging where an index lives'), explaining its default omission. The 'project' parameter is self-explanatory from the tool's purpose. With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the indexing status of a project' and details the exact information returned (node/edge counts, root path, git context, coverage report). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning query_graph for structural queries over misses.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this before trusting graph completeness on a file', instructs to 'ALSO grep it' if a file is listed, and directs structural queries to query_graph with graph='missed'. It also clarifies that 'not_indexed' files are intentional exclusions and how to include them via re-indexing.

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