project_index_status

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

Annotations already indicate readonly and idempotent nature. Description adds useful behavioral details: default skips new-file scan, includeUnindexed triggers a more expensive walk, and clarifies that 'trust/stability' is separate from freshness. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 presence of an output schema (reducing need to explain return format), the description covers what the tool reports, default behavior, and the effect of the key parameter. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's functionality without gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only explains includeUnindexed. projectId, projectRef, and verbosity are not described. Though the schema provides enums for verbosity, their meaning (compact vs full) is absent, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: compare indexed file rows against live disk metadata to report index freshness. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from potentially confusing siblings like project_index_refresh by focusing on status rather than mutation.

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?

Description explains the default behavior and when to use includeUnindexed parameter, including the trade-off (repo walk cost). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as project_index_refresh, though the context implies it is for checking status, not performing updates.

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