Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the tool actually returns (per-group indexed chunk counts) and framing it as a pre-search verification step, though it doesn't explain what a 'group' is or how failures/zero counts present.

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?

Two short lines, zero waste: the purpose and output content come first, the usage condition second. 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 zero-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, return content, and invocation timing. It is slightly thin on return shape and the 'group' vs 'projects' terminology is used interchangeably, which could confuse an agent interpreting results, but the essentials are present.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. Nothing about the schema needs compensating for in the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Check indexing status' — and specifies the payload ('number of indexed chunks per group'), so the agent knows exactly what diagnostic data comes back. It does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast itself with search_code/list_projects, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: verify indexing before searching, or debug empty results. It offers clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so there is room left for an agent to guess at edge cases.

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