tigergraph__get_vector_index_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only check but never explicitly states that it has no side effects or that it does not modify data. It also does not describe error behaviors or edge cases.

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 communicates the core functionality and expected output. It contains no redundant words or unnecessary flourishes, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description provides the essential return values, which is helpful for polling workflows. It does not mention authentication requirements or error handling, but the simple nature of a status check makes this less critical.

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 schema descriptions cover all four parameters adequately (profile, graph_name, vector_name, vertex_type) with clear meanings and defaults. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.

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: checking the rebuild status of vector indexes. It also explicitly defines the two possible return values, making the purpose unambiguous and self-contained.

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 tells what the tool does but does not specify when to use it (e.g., 'after triggering a rebuild' or 'to poll for completion'). It lacks explicit guidance on alternative tools, though the purpose is straightforward.

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