metadata_index_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the informational payload (build time, entry count, coverage per survey), which implies a non-mutating read, but it never confirms that the tool does not trigger a rebuild nor describes cost, latency, or behavior on a missing/empty index.

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 filler; the resource is named first and the returned fields follow immediately. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values in detail, and it already names the main status fields. The only shortfall is the absence of guidance tying it to rebuild_metadata_index as the read/write pair.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the schema shows. The schema coverage is 100% and the empty property set is self-explanatory.

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 ('查看本地元数据索引的状态' - view the local metadata index status) and enumerates what the status comprises: creation time, entry count, and per-survey coverage. This clearly separates it from the sibling rebuild_metadata_index, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to rebuild_metadata_index, useful for checking index freshness. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition that selects this over alternatives, and no stated prerequisites.

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