status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it compares the indexed commit against current HEAD to detect staleness and reports last run, which is meaningful context. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, leaving a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core reporting scope followed by the key usage directive. No filler or redundancy; every phrase contributes.

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 zero parameters, full annotation absence, and an output schema that already describes return values, the description is complete enough. It summarizes what the status report contains and tells the agent to call it first, which are the key missing pieces not covered by structured fields.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema is fully covered and empty; per the rubric, zero-parameter tools baseline at 4.

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 it reports index status, listing specific fields: repos, indexed commit vs current HEAD (stale), counts, last run. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling tool, so it falls short of the 5 threshold for sibling differentiation.

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 instruction 'Call this first' gives a clear, explicit priority for when to use this tool. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the workflow guidance is strong enough to route the agent appropriately.

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