Index Stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only reporting operation, which is helpful, but it does not explain what happens if the local index does not exist or is stale, nor does it mention whether the report could trigger an update. The core behavior is transparent, but edge cases are left open.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the two key outputs (contents and build time). There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given that the tool takes no parameters and has an output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent deciding whether to call it. The only missing context is explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, but the resource name and purpose make the use case reasonably clear.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than inventing parameter details.

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 specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource ('the local index') and specifies exactly what is reported: its contents and build time. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_jmp_docs and browse_jmp_toc, which navigate or search documentation rather than inspect the index itself.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a status/inspection use case, but it never states conditions like 'use this to check if the index is current' or 'instead of searching, use this to see indexed items.' An agent must infer the intended context from the name and resource.

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