get_indexing_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits by stating it 'Shows completion statistics', 'Displays batch processing details', and 'References log files for detailed debugging.' It implicitly indicates a read-only status operation, though it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, enhanced features, when_to_use, parameters, returns). It is somewhat verbose but every section adds value. The XML-like markup improves readability, though a more concise summary could achieve the same clarity in fewer words.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter details, and return information. It even includes enhanced features and debugging references, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only defines 'codebase_path' as a string with no description, but the tool description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics: absolute path requirement, valid/invalid examples, validation rules, and optional behavior when omitted. This greatly exceeds the schema's bare definition.

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's purpose: 'Check if codebases are indexed and get their status information.' It also lists specific features like completion statistics and batch processing details. This verb+resource description distinguishes it from siblings like index_codebase and search_codebase.

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 '<when_to_use>' section provides explicit scenarios, such as 'Before indexing to check if already done' and 'Debug why search returned no results.' It also includes parameter guidance with optional behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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