getIndexStatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (published index check) and the conditional staleness comparison when repo_path is passed, adding meaningful behavioral detail. It does not discuss error handling or return format, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the optional parameter behavior is explained efficiently without verbosity.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and the optional parameter's effect. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could mention edge cases like missing indexes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines repo_path explicitly as 'the repo's local git working directory' and explains its effect, while repo is implicitly defined as the repository identifier. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 checks whether a repo has a published index and reports its freshness, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the code navigation siblings by focusing on index status rather than code exploration.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to check index existence/freshness) and explains the optional repo_path behavior for staleness comparison. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is strong enough to make usage obvious.

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