kb_get_status

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

Annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers read-only nature. The description adds context about the indexing status result and the key behavioral trait that search only returns ready documents, which is useful for understanding the eventual consistency model. It doesn't cover pagination or response size, but for a read-only status check this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core function and immediately followed by a usage tip. No redundant words, perfectly concise for the information conveyed.

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?

No output schema exists, and while the description mentions counts and per-document status, it does not specify the exact response structure or fields. For a tool with moderate complexity, it gives enough to understand the general output but lacks detail on per-document status format.

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 does not explain project_id, collection_id, or config. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a KB's indexing status' with details on counts and per-document status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kb_search (search returns only ready documents) and kb_get_document (single document), making its scope unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call this after any write' and contrasts with search behavior ('search only returns ready documents'). This gives a clear when-to-use and differentiates from the search tool, though it doesn't mention alternatives like kb_get_document for per-document details.

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