index_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly states what the tool returns and includes a note about staleness not needing manual action, implying no destructive side effects. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are often implicit for read-only tools. The behavioral description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 very concise: two short sentences in the first paragraph, a one-sentence note, and an Args/Returns block that is minimal. Every element is useful, no redundant phrases. The structure is 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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema (though not detailed in the description), the description provides sufficient information about what the tool does and returns. The note about staleness adds valuable context. It could be slightly more precise about the return structure, but it is complete enough for typical use.

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 (project_path) with no description beyond title and type (0% coverage). The description adds 'Absolute path to the project root directory,' providing essential semantics. This fully compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 gets index status for a project, specifying the returned information (indexed status, last updated, files/chunks count). It distinguishes from the sibling search_code by noting that search_code automatically re-indexes stale files, implying this tool is for checking status without acting on staleness. The verb 'Get' and resource 'index status' are specific.

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 explicitly tells when to use (to get index status) and when not to (no need to manually check staleness because search_code handles it). However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling index_codebase, which is a minor omission.

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