index_stats

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

With no annotations, the description correctly implies a read-only operation ('Show'), but does not disclose any edge cases or behaviors (e.g., behavior when service is null). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Efficient and to the point.

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 stats tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks clarification on the optional parameter and does not leverage the output schema to explain return values.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'service' parameter. It mentions 'for a service' but neither defines the parameter nor notes its optionality and null default, leading to potential misinterpretation.

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 shows index statistics (files and symbols) for a service, distinguishing it from search and reindex siblings. However, it does not clarify that the 'service' parameter is optional, which could be confusing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file_symbols' or 'list_services'. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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