Check local search index health: view document count, indexed root directories, index size, last update time, and active indexing rules. No parameters required.
查看本地索引的概况：文档总数、已注册的索引根目录、索引落盘体积、最近一次更新时间，以及当前生效的索引规则（排除目录/追加文本扩展名/单文件体积上限）。不需要参数。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which matches the description's 'view' operation. The description adds specific behavioral context by listing the exact fields returned, going beyond the annotation. It discloses no side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only tool.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('查看本地索引的概况') and then lists the specific items in a clear enumeration. It is concise without sacrificing necessary detail.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what it returns. It covers all the relevant data points, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.
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, and the description explicitly states '不需要参数' (no parameters needed). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly confirms the lack of inputs.
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 tool's function: viewing an overview of the local index, and enumerates the specific data points it returns (document count, root directories, disk size, last update, rules). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools 'search' and 'preview' without ambiguity.
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 implies usage by stating it requires no parameters and provides status information. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context makes it obvious this is for checking index health/overview rather than searching or previewing. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'when to use' phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.