everything_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned fields (available, db_loaded, version, indexed_items) and explains the meaning of db_loaded (False while building index), plus the failure behavior with an actionable error. This goes beyond a minimal description, though it doesn't cover every nuance like potential performance or networking details.

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 three sentences: it states the purpose, gives the usage context, and lists the return fields concisely. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the clear annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and behavior without being verbose. The connection to the sibling tool search_files is implied appropriately.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4, and the description appropriately omits any parameter-specific 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 reports whether Everything is reachable and index-ready, with a specific verb ('Report') and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_files by positioning itself as a pre-search diagnostic, making it immediately clear when this tool is relevant.

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 phrase 'Call this to self-diagnose before searching' provides explicit context for when to use the tool. While it does not name the sibling tool as a direct alternative, the instruction to use it 'before searching' implies a workflow that complements search_files, which is adequate usage guidance.

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