index_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states that this is a read-only/non-mutating check, what the possible status values are, whether indexing is per-project or shared, or any cost/latency/auth considerations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier follows the action efficiently. Slightly penalized only because the unexplained 'CBM' term consumes words without adding clarity.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter), so the description covers the core call pattern. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should say what a status result looks like (e.g., indexed/pending/failed) and how the whole-snapshot result relates to per-project results; those gaps matter for correct interpretation.

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 0% — the single `project` parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by noting that `project` selects one project inside the space snapshot and that omitting it targets the snapshot as a whole, but it does not say whether the value is a project name, slug, or ID.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (CBM indexing status) plus the scope it applies to: the space snapshot or a single project inside it. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling snapshot_index_coverage, which appears to cover very similar ground, and leaves the 'CBM' acronym unexplained.

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 two usage modes (omit `project` for whole-snapshot status, pass it for a single project), so some usage context is inferable. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion or alternative routing versus snapshot_index_coverage, leaving the agent to guess which tool to pick.

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