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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description isn't burdened with safety claims. It instead adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: batched submission (1–8 requests), the count:0 counting mode, and the byte-summing side effect of kind:file + fields:['size']. It does not cover result ordering guarantees or limits on index freshness.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The abbreviated phrasing ('recursive:false browses') is efficient but slightly telegraphic for an agent unfamiliar with the parameter names.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the per-request fields are fully enumerated in the schema. The description supplies what structured fields cannot: batch size limits, alternative tools, and mode-selection shortcuts.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form, making 3 the baseline. The description compresses the same facts ('recursive:false browses; count:0 counts') and the byte summation that the schema's count description already states, adding emphasis rather than new 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find file/folder paths and indexed metadata') plus scope ('across drives or within root'), which is enough to separate it from the only sibling, everything_status. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes content searching to alternatives: 'Use workspace search or rg for file contents', and explains the mode switches (recursive:false browses, count:0 counts). It does not state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., index must be running), so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the informational scope of the check but says nothing about cost, latency, or what a failed connection returns.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the primary output (connection status), with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 is simple (no required params, output schema present, so return shape need not be explained) and the description covers the main scope. The only real gap is the unexplained 'verbose' flag, which matters little for a status probe.

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 single parameter 'verbose' (boolean, default false) is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot know what extra detail it unlocks. With one undocumented parameter the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') with an enumerated resource set: connection status, selected instance, version, index readiness. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the sibling everything_search, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 only implied: 'connection status' and 'index readiness' suggest a diagnostic/preflight call, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or that everything_search is the alternative for actual queries.

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