Knowledge Source Status

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, read-only call, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the state enum includes an ERROR state and that a last error field is returned, but it does not say whether this polls or reflects a live sync state. Adequate, with room for more.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the subject and the state values. Every element earns its place, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming four of the key result fields. It stops short of describing pagination, freshness, or the exact response shape, but for a simple status lookup this is close to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented in the schema with pointers to knowledge_source_list and organization_list. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (knowledge source) and the informational scope (sync status), and enumerates the concrete fields returned (state, last sync time, last error, entry count). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like knowledge_source_get or knowledge_source_sync, which an agent may confuse with a status lookup.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus knowledge_source_get (full details) or knowledge_source_sync (trigger a sync). The usage context is left entirely to inference from the description's phrasing.

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