pp_index_status

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

The description candidly explains that the tool is read-only, uses caching, avoids loading the embedder module, and details cold vs warm paths. This provides good transparency beyond the lack of annotations.

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 verbose and includes obscure cross-references (§11/§6b.3) and jargon ('warm memoized bundle'). It is not front-loaded or easy to parse. Every sentence could be clearer and more concise.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it could still summarize what the output represents (e.g., count and geometry). The description provides deep internal context but misses a concise summary, making it somewhat incomplete for quick comprehension.

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?

There are no parameters. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool does (count-only, uses store-only client), which compensates for the absence of parameters. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 does not explicitly state that 'pp_index_status' retrieves the current index status. It starts with 'Store stats' which is vague, then dives into implementation details. The purpose is implied by the name and context, but not clearly articulated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like pp_vectorstore_check or pp_query. The mention of 'in-handler read-only init guard' hints at a specific context but does not contrast with alternative tools.

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