index_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what status categories are reported and even notes the silently-ignored worktree edge case via the schema, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what conditions indicate parser or FTS failure, or how return values are structured. It discloses a non-obvious behavior, which raises it above a bare description.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean list to enumerate the reported status categories. There is no filler, redundant schema repetition, or wasted clauses.

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 status/read tool this is reasonably complete: it lists the main status dimensions and the only parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, describing the return shape or how to interpret 'freshness' would materially improve the agent's ability to use the results.

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% for the single optional worktree parameter, including default behavior and the silent-ignore edge case. The tool description itself adds no param-specific semantics, so the schema's high coverage keeps this at the baseline without needing extra compensation.

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 identifies the tool as an index-status readout, enumerating the exact facets it exposes (git/indexed head, file counts, parser failures, FTS sync, schema version). It is not a tautology and is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like heal_index, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'show' or 'read'.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as heal_index, memory_validate, or papertrail_sync_status. The only usage hint is 'status' in the name, which weakly implies it is a read-only health check, but no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance exists.

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