oz_index_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as checking index readiness, which is clear but minimal. It doesn't disclose additional traits like what 'ready' means operationally, potential latency, error conditions, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding, though the core function is stated.

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 that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension by an agent.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context adequately. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values or error handling, which could be helpful for a status-checking tool. It's sufficient but not fully comprehensive for the context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if the OpenZeppelin docs index is ready.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('OpenZeppelin docs index'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_oz_contract' or 'search_oz_docs' beyond implying this is a status check rather than a data retrieval operation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this if other tools report the index is building.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (as a follow-up to index-building reports) and implies an alternative context (don't call it if the index is already ready or if other tools haven't reported building). It effectively guides the agent on appropriate invocation timing.

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