Status for den lokale indeksen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what data is returned and implies a read-only snapshot by referencing when the corpus was last fetched rather than saying it fetches now. It could be more explicit about being non-mutating, but nothing suggests 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 short sentences with no wasted words: the first lists the reported content, the second gives usage guidance. The information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (last fetch time, document count, paragraph count, type distribution) and the reasoning for using it. Nothing important is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, and the empty schema fully documents this. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed since there is nothing to configure.

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 tool reports when the local corpus was last fetched, counts of documents and paragraphs, and type distribution. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/retrieval tools, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 explicitly says 'Check this when freshness matters' (Sjekk denne når ferskhet betyr noe), providing a clear context for use. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list shows status is the only index-inspection tool besides sync.

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