stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns data but does not describe error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites (e.g., index must be loaded). The behavior is simple and mostly implied.

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 concise with two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by return fields and use case. No redundant or unnecessary 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 simplicity (no params, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It lists key return fields and a use case. It could mention error states or what happens if the index isn't loaded, but overall sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per the guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable.

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 it retrieves statistics about the current index and lists specific return fields (chunk count, collection name, storage mode, embedding provider). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'collection_stats' or 'check_index_status'.

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 provides a use case: 'Use this to verify the index is loaded and check its size.' It does not, however, mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different purposes, leaving some ambiguity.

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