pathgrove_index_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: a building index may serve cached rows during reconciliation, and the call does not trigger a rescan or require an external application. That tells the agent what state the reported data may be in, which annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences with the reported content front-loaded and the caveat second. Every sentence carries information; a slight tightening is possible but there is no 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return values. It covers what is reported plus the key caveat about mid-reconciliation results, leaving little an agent would need before calling it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing about parameter behavior is missing or ambiguous.

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: reports index readiness, configured roots, and last scan errors. It is clearly distinguishable from the search siblings, though it never names them explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reconciliation caveat hints this tool is the way to check index health while a scan is running. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer it over pathgrove_count_stats or the search tools, and no stated prerequisites.

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