Show index status

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's main addition is the 'offline' characteristic and the explicit listing of returned fields (stats, embedder mode, indexedAt). This adds context beyond the annotations, enriching the agent's understanding of what to expect without contradicting the hints.

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 well-structured with a concise one-sentence purpose statement followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The key information is front-loaded, and formatting aids readability.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (indexed state, counts, embedder mode, timestamp) and parameter details. Combined with the annotations (safe, idempotent), it is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result. Sibling differentiation is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'path' and 'response_format' having descriptions in the input schema. The description essentially repeats the parameter semantics (defaults, format options) without adding new meaning. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Show' and clearly defines the resource: whether a repository root has a local index, its stats (files/chunks/symbols), and the active embedder mode. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like localscope_index (which likely creates/updates an index), localscope_search (searching), and localscope_impact (impact analysis).

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 by naming the exact information it provides (index status, stats, embedder mode), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you need to check status' or 'for searching use localscope_search instead.' The 'Read-only, offline' note hints at safe usage but doesn't provide routing guidance.

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