get_index_health

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/destructive safety, and the description reinforces this and adds genuinely new behavioral context: the empty-index next_steps behavior, the projectRoot inclusion, and the exact JSON envelope. No contradiction with annotations.

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: a front-loaded purpose statement and a state-sensitive behavior note, plus a compact return-shape hint. Every sentence contributes information relevant to correct invocation.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it enumerates the JSON fields. It also explains empty-index behavior and provides follow-up tool names, making it complete for a zero-parameter read-only health check.

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, so the schema leaves nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter syntax and instead uses the space to describe the return payload.

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 opens with a specific action-resource pair ('Get index status, statistics, health, and pipeline progress') and spells out the payload, so an agent knows exactly what the tool reports. It is distinct in subject matter from siblings like get_session_stats, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it stops just short of top differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear invocation condition: 'Use to verify the index is ready before running queries.' It also hints at routing to list_projects and call_project_tool when the index is empty. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative health tools are named, so it misses the top criterion.

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