Index status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not obligated to explain that. It does add useful content beyond the annotations by disclosing what the call returns — file, chunk, and size counts per project — which matters given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing freshness, pagination, or behavior for large project sets.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the listing behavior and followed immediately by the parameter rule. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is padding.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what is listed, what is returned, and how the optional path narrows scope. Minor gaps remain around result size/pagination and whether counts reflect a live or stale index.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Optional project path to check'. The description's 'pass path for one project' reinforces the scoping semantics (omitting it broadens the result set) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List indexed projects') and even names the returned fields ('file, chunk and size counts'), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like index_project or find_duplicates, but the read-only listing intent is unambiguous.

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?

'pass path for one project' implies the two modes (omit path to list all, supply path for a single project), so usage is inferable rather than spelled out. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to index_project or the other siblings, so it sits at the implied-usage tier.

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