Index status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ('Return') and implies salientness checking, but it doesn't describe error conditions or what 'active snapshot' means. This is 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?

Two short sentences, no redundant wording, with the primary operation front-loaded. The usage guidance is separated into its own sentence, improving readability.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives the gist of the return (snapshot metadata and changed paths) but not its structure or field details. It also doesn't elaborate on 'active snapshot,' so an agent may need to call the tool to learn the output shape. Given the single parameter and low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 never mentions the repo_id parameter, and with 0% schema description coverage, it adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name. The name is somewhat self-explanatory for an index-status tool, but the description still doesn't confirm its role.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'active snapshot metadata and paths changed since indexing,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling code-graph tools. The second sentence adds a functional context (run before graph results), reinforcing the purpose.

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?

It explicitly tells when to run the tool ('Run before relying on graph results'), giving agents a clear trigger condition. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the timing guidance is concrete.

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