status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status snapshot by saying 'Etat de l'index', and it discloses the content of the returned information. However, it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, nor does it define 'fraicheur' or mention any operational caveats such as freshness thresholds or staleness behavior.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core subject ('Etat de l'index') and immediately enumerates the meaningful output fields. Every part contributes useful information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields but leaves some ambiguity around the meaning of 'fraicheur' and how it is measured. It is adequate for a basic status call, but it does not fully define the output semantics or clarify how this status tool relates to the many sibling tools. A bit more context would make it complete.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no compensation is needed; the description does not need to add parameter detail where none exists.

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 that the tool reports the state of the index and lists the specific fields it returns: date, number of files, and freshness. It does not use a verb, but the noun 'Etat' plus the listed attributes makes the purpose understandable. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like health or check, though the listed fields help distinguish it.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as health, check, or impact. The description only states what the tool reports, not the context in which it is the appropriate choice or when another tool should be selected instead.

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