provenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what information is returned, which helps set expectations, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or whether checking compile status triggers any build/scan side effects.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and lists the output fields efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity—no parameters and no output schema—the description covers the main return pieces well. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying what 'index' refers to and whether any action is performed, but overall it is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by indicating that the tool operates on 'this index', even though no parameters are declared.

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 identifies a specific resource—provenance info for the current index—and names the exact pieces of information returned: SWAT+ checkout, commit, compile-check status, and scanner-warning count. It is distinct from the sibling code-analysis tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'reports'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The description implies a query about the current index but does not explain when this is the right choice among the listed siblings.

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