database_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns database contents and reachability, and crucially warns that an empty result may mean nothing has been ingested yet. While it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-freeness, the read-only nature is clearly implied.

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 two brief sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('What the database currently holds, and whether it is reachable') followed by a valuable usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, gives a usage scenario, and clarifies a potential misinterpretation of results. The output schema covers return structure, so no further detail is needed.

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, so there is nothing to document. According to the rules, with 0 params the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output and usage rather than inventing parameter details.

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's function: reporting the database's current contents and reachability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on specific activity operations by addressing the underlying data store state. The phrasing, while not using an explicit verb like 'reports' or 'checks,' unambiguously communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

It explicitly states when this tool is worth calling: 'before concluding that an activity is missing.' It explains the rationale that an empty result could indicate no ingestion rather than a missing session, providing actionable guidance for the agent. It doesn't name alternatives, but gives a clear trigger for use.

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