Reports whether the local search index matches files on disk without updating it. Use this to verify index consistency when other tools have not already refreshed it.
Report whether the index matches the files on disk, without updating it. Rarely needed: every other tool updates the index first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the critical trait: this reads status without mutating the index, unlike every sibling. It does not describe the shape of the result, but the core safety/mutation profile is covered.
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 action and immediately followed by the routing caveat. Every clause earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema status check, the description conveys the operation, its non-mutating nature, and the rarity of use. The only mild gap is that it does not hint at what the report looks like (e.g., boolean vs. list of drifted files), but no output schema exists to defer to.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add or omit.
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 and resource: reports whether the index matches files on disk, and explicitly notes it does so without updating. This clearly separates it from siblings like index_project and the search tools that mutate the index first.
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?
Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Rarely needed: every other tool updates the index first.' The agent knows this is an exception path and that the default choice among siblings is a search/index tool, not this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.