check_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It effectively states the return values (whether indexed and whether stale) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention potential errors or performance, but for a simple check tool this is adequate.

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 three sentences long: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third explains return values. It is front-loaded with the key action and contains no filler.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and how to use it. It provides essential context for a simple check tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is appropriate. Baseline score of 4 is justified.

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 checks if the directory index is up-to-date and gives a specific use case (deciding between semantic search and file-by-file reading). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'check_index_status', which may have a similar 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?

The description explicitly advises to call this tool FIRST when unsure about the search method, providing clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly suggesting when not to use (when indexing status is known). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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