get_index_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates the read-only nature. The description adds useful behavioral context about what metadata is returned and the condition for using sync_emails first. It does not disclose potential error conditions or exact output format, but for a simple read-only metadata tool, this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, tightly structured, and front-loaded with the key output. Every sentence adds value: what it returns, when to use it, and what to do in a specific condition. No wasted words.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's function, provides usage context, and includes conditional logic for handling an empty or stale index. The context signals confirm its simplicity, and the description fully compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by default). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. It adds value by describing the returned metadata fields, which is more relevant than parameter info.

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 tool's purpose: returning metadata about the local SQLite email index, listing specific fields (row count, last sync timestamp, schema version, per-folder coverage). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_indexed_emails and sync_emails by positioning itself as a pre-query verification step.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use to verify index freshness before querying with search_indexed_emails or get_threads, and call sync_emails first if the index is empty or stale. This clearly articulates when to use it and how it relates to alternatives.

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