repo_status

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

The description accurately states the operation is a retrieval of metadata with no destructive hints. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden and is clear. However, it does not mention potential latency or caching behavior, though for a metadata fetch this is minor.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and lists key outputs with no extraneous words. Every part 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return fields. However, it could be slightly more complete by indicating the format (e.g., JSON object) or providing an example. The sibling tools list is large but this tool's simplicity makes the description sufficient.

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 has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), and the description adds value by enumerating the specific metadata fields returned. This goes beyond the schema to clarify what the output contains.

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 specifies the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'repository index metadata', listing exact fields (file count, symbol count, chunk count, timestamp). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on code analysis, searching, or architecture.

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 usage for checking index status, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like semantic_status or search_code. No exclusions or context for when not to use are provided.

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