chat.get_knowledge_index_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the job is 'async', which is useful context, but it doesn't explain what 'status and progress' means exactly (e.g., possible states, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only). For a simple status getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words or repetitive information. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter status-checking tool, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't describe the return format or possible statuses, but given no output schema, the agent can infer it returns progress details. It could be richer, but it's adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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 100%: the 'jobId' parameter is described as 'Knowledge indexing job ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter explanation.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and progress of an async repository knowledge indexing job'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_knowledge_index, cancel_knowledge_index, and list_knowledge_batches by focusing on status retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: after initiating an async indexing job, you'd call this to check its status. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is obvious given sibling tool names. This is clear context without exclusions, matching a score of 4.

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