kb_status

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds rich behavioral context: it explains index states (complete, rebuild_needed, outdated, build running/interrupted), notes that outdated indexes remain in use until the user approves kb_rebuild, and states that layout lists files the plugin no longer reads but never deletes. It also mentions the fallback behavior of returning a question to ask the user when no folder was chosen yet.

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 dense paragraph with nested parentheses, backtick paths, and many clauses. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the amount of detail and lack of structural separation make it harder to scan than necessary, especially since an output schema already exists.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what status information is available. It covers location, indexed folders, multiple index types, index health states, layout details, and user-approval behavior, leaving no obvious contextual gap for invoking the tool correctly.

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, and the description does not need to explain any input parameters. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4, as the schema and description align without requiring additional parameter semantics.

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 identifies a specific resource (Knowledge base) and enumerates what the status covers: location, indexed project folders, ESI index, documentation indexes, SOPs, index states, and layout. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like kb_search and hw_lookup by making clear it reports status rather than performing search or rebuild actions. However, it never states a direct verb like 'reports' or 'returns' and relies on implication.

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?

Usage is implied through the mention of index states and the need for user approval before kb_rebuild, but there is no explicit statement of when to call kb_status versus alternatives such as kb_search or kb_rebuild. The description provides context that helps an agent infer its role as a status-inspection tool, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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