Index information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral content beyond that: it discloses what the tool returns (upstream commits/versions and counts of components and docs), which matters because there is no output schema. It doesn't mention whether the counts are exact or how often the index is rebuilt, but the core disclosure is solid.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary payload (source commits/versions) and then appends the secondary payload (counts). No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 no-argument, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the response contains and that it is static provenance data. It could go slightly further on freshness semantics (e.g., whether this reflects the currently deployed index), but overall it is complete for the complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-related baseline is 4. The description correctly presents this as an argument-free informational call, and no parameter meaning is left ambiguous.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Show") with a precise resource: the provenance of the bundled index (source commits/versions) plus component/doc counts. That is clearly distinct from the sibling retrieval tools like list_components, get_component, and search_docs. It stops short of naming a sibling to route against, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion. An agent can infer the use case (checking index freshness/version or gauging corpus size before searching), but nothing in the text says when this is preferable to querying components directly.

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