get_index_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description's added disclosure is a summary of the returned fields (chunk totals, file list, type distribution), which partially duplicates the existing output schema rather than adding new behavioral context like cost, scope, or staleness.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return summary; no filler. Slightly wasteful given the return details are already captured by the output schema.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a complete output schema, and a fully documented parameter, the description provides enough for correct invocation. Only the absence of any usage/routing guidance keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single db_path parameter is fully documented, including the LANCEDB_PATH fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is warranted.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get status information about the current search index') and enumerates what the status comprises. It is implicitly distinguishable from the mutating siblings (index_folder, reindex_file) and the query sibling (semantic_search), but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent would infer this is the read-only inspection call versus the mutating siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance, so it stays at minimum viable.

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