rag_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, instant, and does not load the embedding model. This is good behavior disclosure for a report tool, though it doesn't mention potential limitations like staleness or exact response format, which is minor given the simplicity.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence lists the precise report contents, and the second gives usage and behavioral context. Information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns (stats and breakdown), and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it appropriately stays silent on them. No additional meaning is required beyond what the schema (empty) provides.

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 reports knowledge base statistics (document count, chunk count, total indexed bytes, per-file-type breakdown). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the content distinguishes it from sibling tools like rag_search, rag_clear, and rag_index.

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?

It explicitly says to use it 'to check whether anything is indexed before running a search,' providing a clear context of use. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the intended use case is clear and the siblings are evident from the tool names.

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