diagnostics_indexer_status_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Report on the status' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, auth needs, or other side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 with no wasted words, achieving high conciseness. However, it is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity. The structure is linear and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the report's format, available parameters, or usage constraints. The current description does not adequately equip the agent to understand the tool's full behavior or output, making it incomplete.

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 has one parameter 'params' described vaguely as 'Action parameters as a JSON object'. The description does not elaborate on what keys or values the object may contain. Despite 100% schema description coverage, the generic parameter description fails to add meaningful semantics, leaving the agent uninformed about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Report on the status of all Magento indexers' clearly specifies the resource (indexers) and action (report status). It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostics tools like 'diagnostics_inventory_salable_report' and 'diagnostics_product_display_check' by being specific to indexers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given the presence of sibling diagnostics tools, explicit differentiation would be helpful but is absent.

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