SRC (Structured Repo Context)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing what the tool returns ('file count, chunk count, and indexed languages'), but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., what happens if directory doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'check' implies it is). It adds useful context but has gaps.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidance, third describes return values. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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 simple read-only status check tool with 1 parameter (fully documented in schema) and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, usage guidance, and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or confirming it's non-destructive, but it's largely adequate for this complexity level.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'directory' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Check if a codebase is indexed and ready for search') and the resource ('codebase'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'index_codebase' (which creates the index) and 'search_code' (which uses the index). It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining what 'status' means in this context.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('USE THIS to verify index exists before searching'), providing clear guidance on its purpose relative to alternatives like 'search_code'. It effectively tells the agent to use this as a prerequisite check before performing searches.

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