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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it lists all documents with status and chunk counts, implying read-only behavior, but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or if there is any ordering/pagination.

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 two short sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the main action, and the second adds a useful use case.

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 is simple (list with no params), but the description lacks details about the response format beyond status and chunk counts. It doesn't mention other fields like id or title, which would be helpful. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details as the schema is empty and fully covered.

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 it lists knowledge documents with processing status and chunk counts, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool add_knowledge by mentioning use case.

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 directly states when to use this tool: to check if items added via add_knowledge have finished training. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools like search_knowledge.

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