obsidian_index_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates a non-mutating status/report action and names the exact condition evaluated, but it does not disclose edge behavior (e.g., error vs false when index is missing) or explicitly confirm it will not create the index. That is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and delivers the key facts with no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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 status tool with an output schema, the description states the core purpose sufficiently. It is slightly short of complete because it does not explicitly mention side-effects or preconditions, but complexity is low and the output schema can carry return-value details.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The zero-parameter baseline is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('index'), and specifies the exact condition being checked (exists and matches the configured embedding model). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like obsidian_index (creation) and obsidian_search (querying).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any named alternative. However, the status-report phrasing and sibling list (obsidian_index, obsidian_search, obsidian_rag) imply it is a readiness check before search/RAG operations, which gives the agent some guidance by inference.

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