index_status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It only describes the output fields, leaving the agent unaware of potential impacts or restrictions. This is a significant gap for a tool that accesses system state.

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 long, containing only essential information: the purpose and the output fields. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

While the description explains what the tool returns, it lacks details such as the data structure (e.g., object vs array), data types of the fields, or how the response is formatted. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more structural guidance. It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% with a well-described optional parameter. The description adds value by listing the output fields (file count, symbol count, edge count, last indexed time) that are not present in the input schema, helping the agent understand what information will be returned. This compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 retrieves indexing status for codebases, specifying the resource (indexing status) and action (get). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like index_codebase (which creates indexes) and search_symbols (which searches symbols) by focusing on status.

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 for checking indexing status but does not explicitly mention when to use or not use this tool, nor does it reference alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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