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 burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Show' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or any side effects. It also doesn't mention anything about data freshness, caching, or potential errors. For a status tool, this is a notable gap.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and the key information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output. Excellent terseness.

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 status tool, the description is largely sufficient. It outlines the output fields (documents, paths, chunk counts), and the presence of an output schema likely details the structure further. There is no mention of prerequites or potential pitfalls, but given the simple nature, this is acceptable.

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 per calibration the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details. The absence of parameters is fully supported by the schema, and the description adds nothing extra but doesn't need to.

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 ('Show') and the specific resource ('indexed documents, Markdown paths, and chunk counts'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_document or search_documents, though it might overlap with list_documents. However, it specifies the exact output dimensions, making its purpose clear.

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 usage for checking indexing status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_documents. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative routing, leaving some ambiguity. The tool name 'index_status' suggests its purpose, but the description alone doesn't provide definitive guidance.

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