get_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 behavioral burden. It discloses that indexing occurs as background quick/thorough tasks and that wait=True blocks synchronously with an optional timeout_seconds – meaningful behavioral context. It does not state whether the call itself is read-only, nor what the timeout does on expiry, leaving minor gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded: the first establishes what is inspected, the second explains the wait behavior. Every clause carries information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description sensibly focuses on what state is inspected. It covers the two parameters and the background-task behavior. The remaining gap is the timeout edge case and the absence of any when-to-use framing, which keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for wait=True ('synchronously await index completion') and names timeout_seconds, but does not explain the default (30) or what happens when the timeout elapses. It partially compensates but leaves the second parameter's semantics underspecified.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Inspect') plus the resource ('indexing state') and enumerates exactly what is reported: background task status, chunk counts, and completion timestamps. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like refresh_index (which triggers indexing) and get_chunk (which fetches content).

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 explains the wait=True mechanism for synchronously awaiting completion, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over refresh_index or when polling is appropriate, and it gives no exclusions. Usage is only implied rather than explicitly framed.

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