index_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists return values (document count, section count, dirty count, worker status) and does not mention side effects, read-only guarantees, permissions, or any operational considerations. The verb '確認' hints at a possibly safe read operation, but this is not explicit.

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, well-structured sentence: it states the purpose first, then lists the returned information. It is not repetitive and contains no filler, earning the maximum score.

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 simple status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the returned fields. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe edge cases, but these are less critical here. The completeness is good but not perfect.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions (the 'project' parameter has a clear description). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('確認します') and resource ('インデックスの詳細な状態'), making it clear this checks index status. It mentions distinct return values (document count, section count, dirty count, worker status), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_system_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage: you call this when you need detailed index status. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this versus get_system_status or other siblings, and offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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