library_ingest_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns data (a dashboard), but it does not indicate whether it is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. Important context like performance implications or data freshness is missing.

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 very concise, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence lists what is returned, and the second provides the primary use case. There is no fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

While the description adequately explains the tool's overall purpose and output, it completely neglects the parameters. With 4 optional parameters and an output schema, explanations of parameter behavior are necessary for complete understanding. The tool appears to be a simple monitoring dashboard, so the description is incomplete.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the 4 parameters (root, limit_failed, limit_queued, limit_running). An AI agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters, which is critical for effective invocation.

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 returns a 'compact whole-library ingest dashboard' with specific details (document counts, job counts by status, running jobs, etc.), and explicitly ties it to monitoring 'library_ingest_documents progress.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'document_ingest_status' which likely focus on individual jobs.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to monitor library_ingest_documents progress,' providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, which would enhance guidance.

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