get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the diagnostic dimensions (staleness, model availability) but never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether it is cheap or expensive to call, or what happens when the repo path is invalid — gaps that matter more given zero annotation coverage.

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, no filler, with the scope of returned data front-loaded before the usage cue. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the status report contains, which is what an agent needs to interpret the result. It is nearly complete for a low-risk diagnostic tool, missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid or unindexed repo).

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter, and the schema already explains that `repo` is the absolute path to the project root containing `.cogz/`. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (CogZ system status) and enumerates the concrete contents returned: entity counts, DB stats, model availability, and staleness. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the entity/query-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling by name.

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?

"Use to check the index is fresh and retrieval is at full capability before relying on it" gives a clear triggering condition tied to a real workflow decision. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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