crawler_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a read-only 'Show' operation, which implies non-destructiveness. It also reveals the specific data points (configuration, index existence) that the tool reports, offering transparent expectations. However, it does not detail output format or any implicit limitations, but for a simple status tool this is adequate.

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, focused sentence of about 15 words. It front-loads the verb and resource, contains no filler, and effectively communicates the core functionality. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does. It covers the key aspects: showing configuration and index existence. The sibling context further clarifies its role, and no additional details are necessary for basic 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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool reports, which is not strictly about parameters but provides context for interpreting the tool's output. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that without needing to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('active crawler configuration' and 'whether a local documentation index exists'). It is distinct from sibling tools like crawl_documentation (action), search_documentation (search), and get_documentation_page (retrieve), making its purpose obvious.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools. While the context of sibling names is given, the description itself offers no usage direction.

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