index_status

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

The verb 'Show' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the phrase 'status' reinforces that no data is changed. However, with no annotations and no additional context, the description does not disclose whether the tool refreshes the catalog, could return stale data, or has any side effects; this is minimal but not fully transparent.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary details. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status 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?

For a simple zero-input status tool, the description is adequate to initiate invocation. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what values or detail are returned (e.g., index state, last update time, catalog names), leaving some uncertainty about how to interpret the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the absence of parameters is itself a useful signal that invocation requires no arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a clear resource ('local catalog and index status'). It is semantically distinct from the sibling tools, which are all retrieval-oriented operations, and it immediately signals this is a status/inspection tool rather than a document/evidence lookup.

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 explicit guidance about when to call this tool vs. the identified siblings. The absence of an alternative status tool makes the intended use inferable, but the description never states prerequisites or conditions (e.g., 'use after indexing' or 'use to diagnose search issues').

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