waypath_source_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only probe', 'Does not write', 'Does not hit the network', and 'Takes no parameters'. Missing error handling details, but sufficient for intended use.

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 no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first explains purpose and output, second gives usage and safety info.

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, but description covers return values ('availability, last-scan timestamp, configuration errors'). Complete for a diagnostic probe tool given its simplicity.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds 'Takes no parameters' to confirm, which is clear and sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 it is a 'read-only probe of the local source adapters' and specifies it returns 'availability, last-scan timestamp, and any configuration errors'. It is distinct from sibling tools like waypath_recall or waypath_graph_query, and explicitly links to diagnosing recall issues.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use to diagnose why is my recall empty or before running a large ingest.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but implies safe and lightweight behavior.

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