tigergraph__get_vector_index_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds value by specifying the exact return values, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any additional behaviors such as whether it returns statuses for all vector indexes when no vector_name is given, or what happens if no rebuild is in progress. Given that annotations cover safety well, this is adequate but not rich. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence states the action clearly, and the second sentence gives the key return values. There is no wasted words or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple status-checking tool.

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?

This is a simple read-only status-check tool with no output schema and no nested objects. The description, combined with complete parameter schemas and safe annotations, gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly. It could mention why the status matters (e.g., queries will fail until ready), but that is minor and not essential for invocation. A 4 is appropriate because it is complete for its simplicity, though a tiny bit more context on the significance of the return values would make it a 5.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it doesn't explain how profile or graph_name interact, but the schema already says 'Omit to use the active default profile' and 'If not provided, uses default connection.' So the description adds minimal value, but the schema does the heavy lifting, earning a baseline 3.

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 checks the rebuild status of vector indexes, which is a specific and distinct function. It names the two possible return values ('Ready_for_query' or 'Rebuild_processing'), making it unambiguous. It stands out from sibling tools like 'list_vector_attributes' and 'upsert_vectors' by focusing on status checking.

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 when to use this tool: to check if vector index rebuild is complete before proceeding with queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this after adding a vector attribute to confirm readiness' or 'Do not use this to check general graph status; use get_graph_schema instead.' The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance compared to better tools.

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