index_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it partly does by disclosing the returned fields (story count, time span, data folder). It never states that the operation is read-only, that it requires no parameters, or that the output is a snapshot with no side effects, so important context is left for inference.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the key information front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is a noun fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly reduces clarity but not brevity.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description lists the main fields returned and is just about sufficient. A little more on output format (for example, whether the times are ISO strings or when the index was last refreshed) would complete it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema does all the work and no parameter explanation is needed. Baseline 4 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 names the resource (the local index) and enumerates its coverage: story count, first and last story time, and data folder. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like search_stories or run_sql, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'report' or 'return'.

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 never states when to call this tool or which sibling to prefer — for example, checking index coverage before running a search — and gives no exclusions. The use case is only weakly implied by the list of fields.

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