rag_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is 'safe' (implying read-only) and 'aggregate' (indicating summary rather than raw data), and explicitly states it does not return query or chunk text. These details go beyond a minimal description, though it lacks specifics on what health metrics are included, which is likely covered by the output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Return safe aggregate health and telemetry without query or chunk text.' It contains zero filler words and every phrase adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and a description that clearly conveys its purpose and boundaries, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it. The statement 'without query or chunk text' provides crucial context for distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100% with nothing to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids any parameter-related claims that might be misleading.

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 returns 'safe aggregate health and telemetry,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it operates 'without query or chunk text,' differentiating it from search_knowledge and list_knowledge_sources.

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 context: use this tool for aggregate health and telemetry, and it explicitly mentions it does not involve query or chunk text, implying it is not for content retrieval. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly or provide a formal 'when to use' statement, so it falls short of a 5.

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