hf_index_status

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

The description details what the tool returns (total models, breakdowns, etc.), implying a read-only operation. Without annotations, it carries the transparency burden well, though it could explicitly state no side effects.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose and explicit return list. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains return values. However, it omits usage context (e.g., when the index is built or valid), which would help completeness.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds no parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema fully defines the interface.

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 purpose ('Show the current state of the semantic network') and lists specific return data (total models, anchor dictionary size, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hf_build_index or hf_compare_models.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as phase_e_status or other read tools. Given the sibling context, explicit usage hints would improve selection.

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