Get Corpus Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add behavioral detail: it reports configured local path, performs availability checks, and returns version/commit info only when discoverable. This conveys conditional, best-effort behavior beyond the schema, though it omits any discussion of permissions, side effects, or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first states the purpose, and the second enumerates the status contents. All text earns its place and is front-loaded around the core action.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, the lack of parameter semantics and absence of any guidance relative to sibling tools leave enough ambiguity that the description is only minimally viable rather than 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 0%, and the description only repeats that the action applies to 'a specific corpus.' It does not clarify whether corpus expects a name, ID, path, or any format constraints, so the agent still lacks the semantic information needed to fill the parameter reliably.

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 action ('Get detailed status') on a specific resource ('a specific corpus'), which is clear and distinguishes it from list_corpora and search_corpus. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it loses the last point for explicit differentiation.

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 implied: an agent can infer this tool is for examining one corpus rather than listing all corpora. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over list_corpora, search_corpus, or other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or non-use cases.

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