research_knowledge_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that this is the 'authoritative' snapshot and that migration candidates are 'separately listed,' which is useful context. However, it does not disclose output format, freshness, or what the snapshot actually contains.

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 a single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, containing no filler. The phrase 'separately listed' is slightly awkward, but overall the description is efficient and scannable.

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 no-argument read-only tool with safety annotations, the core action is covered. However, the return content is vague—'snapshot' and 'separately listed migration candidates'—and the description does not clarify how this differs from sibling status tools. With no output schema, a bit more detail about what the returned data contains would improve completeness.

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 takes zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so parameter semantics are inherently complete. The description appropriately focuses on what is read rather than inputs.

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 identifies a read operation ('Read') and the resource ('authoritative research graph/ledger snapshot and separately listed migration candidates'). It is distinguishable from mutation siblings, though 'separately listed migration candidates' is somewhat vague and could overlap with research_migration_scan.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives such as research_cycle_status or research_migration_scan. The read-only nature implies a status-checking use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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