status

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the burden is on the text, and it delivers: it discloses the error condition (repo not enrolled), explains that coverage below 100% means files other tools never see, and clarifies that the file cap affects live-parse tools while staleness does not. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations rather than a restatement of them.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload of returned fields, then the decision guidance. It is information-dense and every clause is load-bearing, though the middle sentence is long enough that a reader must parse it carefully rather than skimming.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows what to expect, and it covers the error case plus cross-tool implications for diff, structure, locate and health. Nothing needed to call this single-parameter, read-only tool correctly is missing.

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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that `repo` names an enrolled repo. The description reinforces this indirectly via the 'not enrolled' error but adds no format or naming detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination (per-repo index health) and enumerates exactly what it reports: last indexed, staleness, parse errors, coverage %, snapshot count, hash, file cap. It explicitly distinguishes the repo-scoped tool from its sibling `health`, which covers the store as a whole, so an agent can pick the right one without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to concrete decisions: judge the stored index that `diff`'s default baseline and the guard read from, check coverage before trusting a `structure`/`locate` miss. It also states when NOT to worry (staleness doesn't affect live parse tools, but the file cap does) and names the alternative (`health`) for store-wide questions.

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