code_search_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and enumerates the output fields. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple status check these are not critical. It does not contradict any annotations (there are none) and gives sufficient behavioral context for expectation setting.

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 sentence that lists the key outputs without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it instantly scannable. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states exactly what information will be retrieved. An agent can call it without needing additional context or clarification.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (none needed), and it correctly explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('current indexing status'), and lists specific fields (progress percentage, total files, indexed chunk count). The verb and resource differentiate it from siblings like code_search, code_search_reindex, and code_search_guide. It unambiguously describes what the tool does.

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 its use for checking indexing status but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tools (e.g., 'use this to check, not to trigger reindexing'). No exclusions or alternative references are given. While the purpose is clear, the tool lacks explicit routing compared to the high-standard examples.

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