duckseek_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about what is reported, explicitly states that only names are reported ('never values'), and conveys this is a read-only diagnostic operation through the verb 'Reports.' It also sets expectations for the data-readiness state covered.

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 compact and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, enumerates the specific env vars, adds the key privacy guarantee, and ends with an actionable instruction — no wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It informs the agent of the exact env vars, the data-state items, the privacy constraint, and the appropriate next step, leaving no meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so the input schema is already complete and the description cannot add much. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description confirms this is a call with no inputs and focuses entirely on what it returns.

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 opens with a clear statement of purpose: 'Environment + data readiness for DuckSeek.' It then specifies the exact resource being reported (missing env vars, registered sources/tables, retrieval-index state), which distinguishes it from siblings like duckseek_list_tables and duckseek_ask.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Call this first', establishing clear positional precedence over sibling tools. It also provides a concrete follow-up action when variables are missing: 'ask the user to provide them into the server environment.'

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