Project, language server and index status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior in 'call once' semantics and the fallback warning ('a warning says when that leaves part of the workspace out'), but reveals nothing about cost, latency, or what 'freshness' means operationally.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the substantive content front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. Every sentence carries a distinct payload: what is returned, when to call, and how to target a nested package.

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 an output schema present and both optional params fully documented in the schema, the description needn't explain return values, and it doesn't try. It covers purpose, timing and scoping adequately; only the term 'freshness' and the absent 'scope' relationship leave small gaps for a zero-required-parameter inspection 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 coverage is 100% and the 'project' parameter description is already richer than the tool description (enclosing Cargo workspace, nearest project marker). The description adds only a light framing — 'Pass profile/project to inspect a nested package' — which the schema already conveys in more detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 upgrades the vague name 'status' into a concrete enumeration: 'detected source-language profiles, project roots, executables, compile flags and freshness.' It partially differentiates from siblings by naming 'orient' as the follow-up step, but never clarifies its relationship to 'scope', leaving one sibling boundary implicit.

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 an explicit trigger — 'Call once before orient in a new project or when orientation is incomplete' — which is actionable and ties directly to the sibling. A second sentence covers the nested-package case. It lacks any when-not guidance or a stated alternative for the ambiguous 'scope' sibling.

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