Get Indexer Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a valuable behavioral note that the tool does NOT trigger reindex, which is more specific than the abstract read-only hint. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify side-effect behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the usage guidance is bundled, and the CLI alternative is provided without extra words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (so return values are defined), annotations for safety, and full schema coverage for parameters. The description adds the diagnostic intent and the no-trigger caveat. Nothing an agent needs to decide when to call or what to expect 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters ('profile' and 'magentoRoot') are fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it hits the baseline of 3 – the schema carries the burden and does so completely.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and specific resources ('indexer_state and mview_state rows'). It clearly defines the tool's diagnostic purpose (stale indexers, 'reindex required', stuck mview consumers) and is distinct from any sibling tool in the list. Even without naming a sibling, the specificity leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use to diagnose stale indexers, 'reindex required', or stuck mview consumers') and what it does NOT do ('Does NOT trigger reindex'). It also provides an alternative action (CLI: bin/magento indexer:reindex). This gives clear usage context and an exclusion, leaving no doubt about appropriate invocation.

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