vmn_index_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return the current status' reasonably implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and it adds the useful behavioral detail that the result indicates whether a rebuild is needed. However, it does not describe the output format, possible status values, or whether the status could be stale.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and immediately adds the decision-relevant detail about rebuild necessity.

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 zero-parameter status-check tool, the description gives enough context to call it correctly and interpret the high-level result. The main gap is the absence of an output schema or return-value explanation, but the description's explicit mention of rebuild-need status substantially covers the practical need.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-description burden to satisfy. The schema fully covers the empty parameter set, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('BM25 inverted index'), and it clarifies the purpose by adding 'Indicates if a rebuild is needed.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like vmn_rebuild_index without needing to open 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: check status before deciding whether a rebuild is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as vmn_rebuild_index for performing the actual rebuild. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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