mat_index_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only status check, which is a clear behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose error handling or what happens on invalid input (e.g., nonexistent heap path). This is adequate for a simple tool but not thorough.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loading the verb and objective. Every word is meaningful; there is no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should specify the return type or format (e.g., boolean, message). It does not, leaving ambiguity about the report output. This is incomplete.

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 has one required parameter 'heap_path' with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'heap_path' represents (e.g., filesystem path, URL) or any constraints. This provides no value beyond the parameter name itself.

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 function: 'Report whether MAT index artifacts already exist for a heap dump.' It specifies a verb ('Report'), a resource ('MAT index artifacts'), and the object ('heap dump'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like mat_healthcheck or mat_oql_query, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or limitations. It does not mention when not to use it or how it relates to other sibling tools. The usage context is only implied.

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