index_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool only retrieves and reports status information, listing exactly what metrics are included and when the index was last harvested. It does not explicitly declare itself read-only, but 'Return current status' strongly implies no side effects, which is adequate for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and immediately lists the exact reported values. Every word contributes useful information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 that there are no parameters, no annotations, and an output schema is present, the description is largely complete for calling the tool correctly. It could have explicitly noted that this is a read-only status check and not a refresh operation, but the lack of parameters and the simple output contract make the tool straightforward to invoke.

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 input schema is empty with no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.

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 the tool's function: 'Return current status of the CKAN mod index.' It also enumerates the specific data returned—total mod count, number with download data, tags, and harvest time—which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like refresh_index.

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 that the tool should be used when the agent needs to check the current state of the mod index, and it does not suggest any exclusions. However, it never explicitly says when to use this over alternatives such as refresh_index or list_tags_tool, so the usage guidance is left to inference rather than direct instruction.

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