get_index_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it does so by specifying the exact outputs (file count, chunk count, last indexed time, disk usage). The verb 'Get' and 'status' imply a non-mutating read, which is credible. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness or error behavior (e.g., if path is not indexed), so it reaches but does not exceed a strong baseline.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns blocks. No filler or redundant repetition of the schema exists.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential call information: what the tool does, how to specify the path, and which statistics are returned. It omits deeper details such as failure modes and when to prefer this over siblings, which are minor for this simple tool but prevent a perfect completeness score.

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 only parameter, path, is fully explained as 'Absolute path to the codebase root directory', adding crucial meaning that the schema itself lacks (the schema only names it 'path' with no description). This is exactly the compensation needed given 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the status of the vector index for a codebase'), making its read-only purpose obvious. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like index_codebase, search_code, and hybrid_search, which perform writing or searching operations.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting index state, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. For example, it does not say 'check this before indexing' or 'use this to determine if search is stale.' Thus usage context is only implied.

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