Checks RAG path and index health; with deep mode, runs a live retrieval probe to verify end-to-end functionality.
检查路径与索引；deep=true 时额外执行真实检索探针。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deep | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It usefully reveals that deep=true executes a real retrieval probe, which implies potential cost or side effects. However, it does not describe the output format, whether the probe mutates state, or any failure behavior — gaps that matter more given zero annotation coverage.
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?
One compact sentence (split by a semicolon) that front-loads the core purpose and appends the parameter behavior. Zero wasted words; appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter health-check 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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need no description, and complexity is low with a single optional parameter. The main gap is the unresolved overlap with sibling rag_get_status, which the description does nothing to clarify. Adequate but not complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that deep=true triggers an additional real retrieval probe, adding meaning beyond the bare boolean schema entry. This satisfies the compensation requirement for the single parameter.
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 and resource: checking paths and indexes of the RAG system. It is not a tautology and adds the deep-mode behavior. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling rag_get_status, which likely overlaps in health/status checking, so it misses the chance to distinguish itself.
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 on when to use this tool versus rag_get_status or the other siblings. The deep=true explanation describes a mode of this tool, not a routing decision. There are no when/when-not conditions or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.