get_repo_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It makes clear this is a read-only status operation by saying 'Return index status' and listing output fields. However, it leaves the staleness indicator undefined and says nothing about error conditions, permissions, or whether the status could trigger indexing side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and uses a compact list of return fields. Every sentence earns its place. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential return content. It is incomplete in two areas: it does not clarify the staleness indicator's meaning, and it gives no sibling differentiation, which matters because get_repo_overview appears to be a closely related read tool.

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 0%, and the description never mentions repo_name or its expected format. The parameter is self-explanatory at a surface level, but there is no guidance on whether it should be a bare name, an owner/repo pair, or some other identifier. The description focuses entirely on the return payload rather than the input.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Return index status for a repository.' It also enumerates the specific fields returned (indexed commit, HEAD, staleness, counts, tokens, time), which gives the agent a concrete sense of purpose. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_repo_overview, but the status-focused scope is reasonably distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_repo_overview or sync_repo. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and listed fields.

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