index_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists return fields, including conditional fields like current_file and progress that appear only when is_indexing=True. It also provides semantics (e.g., progress as a fraction 0-1) and notes the timestamp format. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but the verb and nature of the tool imply this.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of return fields. Each bullet adds distinct value, clarifying field names and conditional behavior. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It goes beyond the schema by explaining conditional fields and value formats, and it covers all relevant behavioral aspects for a status-checking 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately does not attempt to explain parameter semantics, as there are none.

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 starts with 'Get current index status,' which clearly identifies a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_code' by focusing on index health rather than code search.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need current index status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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