get_index_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by specifying 'locally' and 'for this signed-in account', which clarifies scope and account-specificity. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like output format or potential delays, but the annotation coverage is strong, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the action and object. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant wording. Every word earns its place, 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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description clearly states the purpose but does not mention that the courseId parameter filters results, nor does it hint at the output structure (e.g., a list of content items). For a read-only status tool, this is adequate but not fully complete; an agent might wonder whether the courseId is required and what the response looks like.

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 the parameter (courseId) is fully described in the schema as 'Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool.' The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance beyond that.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('which course content has been indexed locally'). It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like get_sync_status or clear_local_index, though the phrasing 'indexed locally' does hint at the distinction.

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 mention get_sync_status (which reports sync status) or start_course_sync (which initiates indexing), nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case solely from the purpose statement.

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