get_index_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the dual output mode (live progress while indexing vs. statistics when idle), which is genuinely beyond the schema. However, it never states the operation is read-only/side-effect-free, nor anything about refresh/polling cost, so the safety profile is left to inference from the verb 'Get'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the use case. Every sentence contributes; only the quoted 'Shows LIVE PROGRESS...' clause is mildly redundant with the opening statement.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description explains what the return looks like in both states, which is the main thing an agent needs. Lacking an output schema, it could say a bit more about the shape of the statistics, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics the description could or should elaborate.

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+resource ('Get the current status of the indexed codebase') and clarifies what the status contains (live progress vs. collection statistics). It implicitly separates itself from mutation siblings like index_codebase or clear_index by framing itself as a monitoring read, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 final sentence gives clear context: 'Use this to monitor long-running indexing jobs.' That tells the agent when the tool is relevant, but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., how it differs from search_code for checking collection contents).

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