ingest_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core function.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language that makes the tool's function immediately apparent without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools including 'health_report', the description should ideally provide more context about how this differs from other status/monitoring tools to be fully complete.

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 description doesn't mention parameters, but with only one optional parameter (auto_start) and 0% schema description coverage, this is acceptable. For a single parameter tool, the description focusing on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details is reasonable, though it doesn't explain what 'auto_start' means in context.

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 action ('Check') and resource ('local ingest server status'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this status check from other monitoring tools like 'health_report' among the siblings, which would require explicit comparison to earn a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'health_report' or other sibling tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or scenarios where this specific status check is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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