corpus_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does a credible job: it explicitly frames the operation as a read/status report ('Décrit l'index') and enumerates exactly which dimensions it covers, including entity counts and corpus state. It omits minor traits like cost or permissions, but these are low-risk for a status tool with an output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Décrit l'index') before enumerating the report scope. It is efficient and wastes nothing, though the comma-separated run-on structure is slightly harder to parse than a bulleted or semi-colon separated list would be.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (which removes the need to describe return values), the description adequately covers the semantics of what this status tool reports. The main gap is the missing usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the report scope itself is fully specified.

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 an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb ('Décrit' — describes) and an enumerated resource list: documents, passages, metadata coverage (years, authors), backend, device, and entity graph state. This concrete scope clearly separates it from the search/verify siblings, though it never names or explicitly contrasts them.

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 — an agent can infer this is the go-to tool for overall index/corpus status — but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over list_documents or search_graph, no when-not conditions, and no mention of alternatives.

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