check_index_status

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read-only check, does not run a search, and returns specific fields (status, reason, action_required, files_modified). It explains that staleness relates to commit changes, giving the agent full understanding.

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 efficient: first sentence defines purpose, second gives usage guidance, third describes return type, and fourth provides examples. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, return values, examples. It is complete and leaves no 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter info, but it does add value by describing the return object structure, which compensates for the lack of 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 'Check whether the Reflex search index is fresh, stale, or missing' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'index_project' (which builds the index) and search tools by emphasizing it runs no search.

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?

Explicitly says when to call: 'once at session start and before any bulk search/refactoring task'. Also tells what to do if status is stale/missing: 'call index_project before searching'. Provides concrete scenarios like git operations.

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