index_status

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the interesting side effect – the tool also triggers the staleness check – which is behavior beyond a pure read. However it doesn't say whether this mutates state, whether it's safe to call repeatedly, or cost/latency implications of triggering a check.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the outcome space; every clause earns its place and the enum-like state list is immediately scannable.

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?

Output schema exists so return value needn't be explained, and the description covers states plus the side effect. But the undocumented 'path' param and unstated mutation/reversibility of the staleness trigger leave the agent with unanswered questions for a tool that does more than read.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% with one required param ('path') left undocumented. The description implies a project scope but never says the param identifies the project by path, and gives no format guidance. Baseline 3 given the single-param simplicity, but a gap remains.

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?

Specific verb (Check) and resource (indexing state for a project), and enumerates the four possible states. It is distinguishable from siblings like reindex_project (which mutates) and list_projects, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: check status before/after indexing or when results seem stale. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given, so the agent must infer context from the sibling set.

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