topology_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports information and returns a clear message when indexing is disabled, which is a behavioral trait. It does not mention potential side effects, errors, or performance implications, but the verb 'Report' implies read-only behavior, and the listed outputs are transparent. Some details about failure modes remain unspecified.

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, with the main verb 'Report' front-loaded. It lists all relevant output items without fluff or repetition. The conditional 'Returns a clear message when disabled' is a concise, structured addition. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain the return values. It enumerates the statistics (indexer state, counts, reasons, nodes/edges, db size, sync time, languages, error) and the disabled-case message, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It does not specify the exact format or types, but that is not strictly required. Minor gap: no mention of error handling in exceptional situations.

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 parameter 'workspace' is fully described in the input schema (absolute path, defaults to session workspace). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for this parameter, so it does not go beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: reporting the health and statistics of the topology index. It lists the specific information returned (indexer state, counts, nodes/edges, db size, etc.) and mentions the disabled-indexing case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like topology_search or topology_explore, which are clearly about querying rather than status reporting.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use this to check if the index is up-to-date' or 'use topology_search for querying.' However, the purpose is self-evident from the report content, and the disabled-indexing fallback hints at a diagnostic role. Still, explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings is missing.

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