get_index_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, no side effects.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by describing the return format explicitly and mentioning pipeline progress (indexing, summarization, embedding). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 compact (four sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: purpose, safety, usage context, and return format. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only health-check tool, the description is fully complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, that it is safe, and exactly what JSON it returns. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, as there is nothing to document. The description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('index status, statistics, health information, and pipeline progress'), and explicitly mentions the readiness check ('verify the index is ready before running queries'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_map or get_context_bundle, which serve different purposes.

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 clear usage context: 'Use to verify the index is ready before running queries.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is narrow enough that this is not a major gap.

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