get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Dict with collection info, statistics, and real-time queue status') but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. For a status getter, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise, with only two lines: the purpose sentence and a brief note about the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or repetition of structured schema details.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, which documents return values. The description provides a clear high-level summary and distinguishes from the live-watch sibling. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a no-argument status endpoint.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the schema has an empty properties object and schema coverage is 100%. The return-focused description does not detract from parameter clarity.

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: 'Get the current index status and queue progress.' This is a specific verb (get) with a specific resource (index status and queue progress), and it differentiates from sibling tools like get_live_watch_status by focusing on the index rather than live watch activity.

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 the tool is used to check indexing status and queue progress, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_live_watch_status or index_codebase. No exclusions or alternative contexts are mentioned.

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