api_index_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the status fields reported, but says nothing about cost, caching, or failure modes when no dump is present.

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 core question (which index is active) before the detail list. The enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct reported fact, so nothing is wasted.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by listing the reported facts. It is adequate for a simple read-only status tool; only the staleness comparison logic against engine-version.txt is left implicit.

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; the schema carries no semantics that the description needs to compensate for.

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?

It names a specific resource (the active API index) and enumerates exactly what the report covers: live dump vs bundled, engine version, entry counts, imported dumps, staleness. That is clearly distinguishable from search_api, api_dump_script, and import_api_dump, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 – an agent can infer this is a diagnostics call to run when API results look wrong or after importing a dump, but the description never states when to call it or how it differs from game_info or diff_game_versions.

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