semantic_index_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Report' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. While it does not disclose edge-case behaviors (e.g., what happens if the index is missing), the zero-parameter read-only nature is transparent and adequate for this tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Report') and immediately lists the data items. No filler or redundant wording. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), and the description lists the key outputs (database, roots, file count, chunk count). It gives a clear picture of what to expect from the tool. It does not specify the return format, but for a status tool this is a minor omission.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description fully covers the tool's inputs by having none. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource (local semantic index database) plus the exact items being reported (roots, file count, chunk count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like semantic_index or semantic_search by focusing on status/read-only reporting.

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?

The description implies usage for checking the state of the semantic index, but does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives (e.g., before indexing or searching). No exclusions are mentioned, but the purpose is self-evident enough to warrant a mid-range score.

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