stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the enumeration of returned fields (databases, counts, size) is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about behavior when no index exists, whether the output is empty or an error, or any cost/performance traits for enumerating all projects by default.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the reported fields, the second gives the use case. No filler, no redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and why an agent would call it. The only real gap is the unaddressed empty/unindexed case.

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 is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Project root. Defaults to all projects.'), so the schema already covers its meaning. The description adds nothing about the project parameter or what 'all projects' yields in practice; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates exactly what it reports: indexed projects, their separate databases, file and chunk counts, and index size. That is enough to distinguish it from index_project (writes an index) and search (queries content). It loses a point only because it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

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?

One concrete use case is given: check whether a folder is indexed. That is real guidance, but there is no statement of when NOT to use it, no mention that indexing first requires index_project, and no contrast with search. Usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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