get_docs_status

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

The description makes clear this is a read-only status query and reveals it returns 'status and configured sources.' However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, whether the index needs to be built first, or what 'configured sources' entails, and with no annotations the description carries the full burden.

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 a single clear sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no unnecessary detail.

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 this is a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete to convey its purpose and return scope. It lacks some usage context, but that is addressed separately and the simplicity of the tool supports this score.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per baseline for no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and its purpose statement suffices.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'local docs index status and configured sources,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_docs, get_docs_chunk, and get_docs_page, which handle searching or retrieving documentation content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking the status before searching or any exclusions, leaving the usage context entirely implied.

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