get_onyx_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports. It adds value by specifying the returned fields and the environment variable (ONYX_API_URL) for self-hosted setups, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Check Onyx knowledge base status') and lists key output fields. No extra words, making it highly efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description stands on its own, clearly stating what the tool returns. It covers the main aspects (health, sync, indexed docs, connector status) and environment context. Minor omission: does not specify if status is real-time or cached, but acceptable for a simple status check.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per calibration, 0 params baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.

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 the tool checks Onyx knowledge base status and enumerates specific fields returned (health, last sync time, total indexed documents, connector status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like onyx_ask (query), onyx_search (search), and run_onyx_ingest (ingestion).

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 implies usage for checking status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools, explicit guidance on when to choose this over others would improve clarity.

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