View Semantic Search Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the two invocation scopes and the superowner authority requirement for the database-wide view, going beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second provides the essential parameter guidance. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only status tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, scoping rules, and an authorization caveat. It does not explicitly state what happens if only one parameter is provided, and there is no output schema, but the stated purpose already hints at the returned content.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It explains that both store and keyspace are needed together for a single keyspace view, and that omitting both selects the database-wide view, which meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool reads the engine's actual semantic configuration and backfill state, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name, but the read-status purpose is evident and distinct from search, memory, and policy tools.

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 clear usage context: pass both store and keyspace for a specific keyspace, or omit both for a database-wide view requiring superowner authority. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the parameter-mode guidance is concrete and actionable.

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