Status for den lokale indeksen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core output: catalog freshness and table count. However, it does not state whether calling status has side effects, whether it can trigger a refresh (especially relevant given the 'sync' sibling), or what format the timestamp/count will take.

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 concise sentence that directly states the two key pieces of information the tool returns. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context; every word 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 parameterless status tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the two outputs an agent would care about. It could add a brief note that it merely reports status and does not invoke a sync, but the title and sibling context make this mostly inferable.

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 schema confirms this with an empty properties object. No parameter documentation is needed, so the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 what information the tool reports: when the table catalog was last fetched and how many tables it contains. This goes beyond the generic title 'status' and distinguishes it from data/search/sync siblings by indicating it is a status/inspection tool. It lacks an explicit verb, but the reporting function is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over its siblings such as 'sync', 'latest', or 'data'. The description only says what information is shown, not when it should be used or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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