f_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation and the description lists the types of information returned, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or has any operational caveats.

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 two sentences with no filler. It opens with the core purpose, then lists return categories, then adds a use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 without an output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the return categories. It is adequate for an agent to know what the tool does and roughly what it returns, though it could be more explicit about the exact shape of the response or any operational caveats.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. Per the calibration baseline, no parameter documentation is needed, and the description's focus on return values is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('status information about the Smart Coding MCP server'), and enumerates the returned data: version, workspace path, model configuration, indexing status, and cache information. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling d_check_last_version, which also appears version-related, so it misses the strongest form of sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear use context: 'Useful for understanding the current state of the semantic search system.' This implies when the tool is appropriate, but it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling to prefer for narrower queries like version-only checks.

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