miniapp_index_status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions reporting status but also has a writeCache parameter that modifies local cache—a side effect not explicitly stated. The description implies read-only reporting but allows writes, lacking full transparency.

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 dense sentence that packs key information. It could be more structured (e.g., separate output description), but it is concise and front-loaded with purpose.

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 3 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format, what 'safe text files' means, or the implications of writeCache=true. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.

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 67%: limit and writeCache have clear descriptions, but projectPath lacks one. The overall description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

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 it computes hashes of safe text files and reports status changes relative to local cache, using CodeGraph incremental indexing. This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools that inspect projects or scan for security, though 'safe text files' is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like miniapp_security_quick_scan or miniapp_inspect_project. The description only explains what it does, not when to invoke it.

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