kb_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states the tool never errors, responds within a few seconds, and enumerates the possible state values with hint guidance when status is not ok. It could be stronger by explicitly confirming read-only/no-side-effect behavior, but the key behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and follows with behavioral and state-value details. The state enumeration is useful rather than filler, though the prose could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It still documents state values and hint behavior, making the definition largely complete, with only the sibling distinction and explicit usage guidance missing.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 4. There are no arguments for the description to clarify.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it reports knowledge-base drive state, index statistics, and job progress. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling kb_health_check, so while purpose is clear, sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Usage is implied by the status/reporting framing, and the description says it always answers quickly. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and does not name alternatives such as kb_health_check.

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