get_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds critical context: the requirement to call index_repository first, and what each scope returns (file count, chunks, languages for index; pages, coverage, staleness for wiki).

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 highly concise: a single sentence plus a bullet list of scope options and a requirement line. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains the main functionality, scope variations, and prerequisite. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but for a simple read tool with strong annotations, it is largely 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 input schema covers both parameters with enum values. The description enriches semantics by specifying default scope ('all') and describing the return content for each scope value, adding value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves repository index status and/or wiki health dashboard, with explicit scope options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_index_status and get_wiki_stats by offering a combined view via scope parameter.

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 explains the three scope options and the prerequisite (index_repository must be called first). It does not explicitly compare when to use this tool versus the separate sibling tools, but the scope parameter inherently covers both use cases.

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