rag_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool returns status information, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explain whether local indexes are refreshed, whether state may be stale, or whether any side effects occur.

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 names the three types of status returned. It contains no filler, repetition, or irrelevant details.

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 status-check tool with an output schema defined, the description is largely complete. It names the domains whose status is returned; the only minor gap is a lack of elaboration on what '本地生成索引' specifically covers, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter descriptions are needed.

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 action (返回/returns) and a clear scope: status of corpus, manifest, and locally generated indexes. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rag_search or rag_get_document, which perform different operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to call this tool instead of alternatives such as rag_health or rag_list_sources. The agent must infer its role from the name and description alone.

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