knowledge_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output includes runtime mismatch warnings, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not elaborate on triggering conditions or severity of those warnings.

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?

A single well-packed sentence with no filler and the key content listed up front. Every phrase 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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names what the report contains, and the output schema handles return-value detail. Only the timing/context of when to call it is left implicit.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the parameter axis.

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?

States a specific verb ("Report") plus four concrete resources: documentation versions, provenance, availability, and runtime mismatch warnings. This clearly separates it from the content-oriented siblings (knowledge_search/read/catalog), though it never names or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/status check to run before or alongside the knowledge content tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no stated alternative, so it stays at the implied-usage level.

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