get_index_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if codebase_id is invalid) or rate limits.

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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous or redundant 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?

The description does not explain what 'indexing status and statistics' entails, nor does it clarify the output format. Given that there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail to set expectations for the agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter that has a description. The tool's description adds context about 'registered codebases' but does not deepen understanding of the parameter beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'indexing status and statistics for registered codebases'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like init_codebase or reindex_file, which are action-oriented rather than status-oriented.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., codebase must be initialized first) or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, such as using get_blueprint_interface for blueprint-specific details.

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