Index Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Report' is consistent and adds no contradiction. It supplements the annotation by specifying that the tool reports progress and last build error, which are useful behavioral details beyond the generic read-only hint. It does not discuss rate limits or side effects, but none are needed for a pure status report.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No filler or redundant wording. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 parameterless status tool, the description is complete: it states what it reports (readiness, progress, error) and the output schema covers return details. No additional guidance is necessary. The tool's role is clear within the sibling set.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing to document, and the description correctly mentions no inputs. The output schema (not shown) presumably defines the return structure, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('FTS index'), and clearly enumerates the reported aspects (readiness, progress, last build error). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reindex, build_embeddings, or okf_generate_index, which perform actions rather than report 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 a read-only status check, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before reindexing, or to diagnose build failures). The intended use is inferable from the tool name and the sibling context, but not stated.

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