Index status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and a closed-world hint, so the description adds real value: it discloses that the response includes per-process role information (whether this process is the indexing primary) and the last sync, which is meaningful multi-process context. It stops short of describing error behavior or output format, but for a read-only status call that is a minor gap.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the reported-field list comes first and the parameter note last. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect back.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely does so by naming each reported field. Minor omissions remain — no note on response shape or behavior when no index exists — but the essential content is covered for a simple read-only stats call.

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 0% and the single boolean parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by explaining that include_files makes the response list every indexed file. It does not restate the default-false behavior or note the cost of enumerating all files, so it is good rather than complete.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports (notes folder, index size in files/chunks, embedder, indexing-primary flag, last sync), so an agent can tell it returns index status rather than notes or documents. It lacks a leading verb phrase and never names the sibling tools it differs from, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 statement of when to call this versus ragdown_recall, ragdown_read_doc, or ragdown_reindex, and no prerequisites or diagnostic context. An agent must guess that this is a status/inspection tool rather than a retrieval one.

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