Knowledge Base Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing data.' It adds behavioral detail by naming the three aspects it inspects (source coverage, provider readiness, active index), which is useful beyond annotation hints.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, the scope, and the non-destructive nature. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or irrelevance.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool, the description adequately names the key output dimensions (source coverage, provider readiness, active index) despite lacking an output schema. It does not fully describe return formatting, but the essence is clear and consistent with annotations.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool inspects rather than parameter details, which are unnecessary.

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 a specific verb 'Inspect' with distinct resources: 'source coverage, provider readiness, and the active index.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rag_list_documents and rag_list_backups, and from mutating tools like rag_build and rag_clear_index.

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 phrase 'without changing data' provides clear context that this is a non-mutating status check, aligning with the read-only annotations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool list makes the usage context obvious.

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