knowledge_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool reports knowledge status, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what the output structure is, or any permissions needed. The tier enumeration is useful but minimal.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant words or irrelevant details.

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-reporting tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource (knowledge), the grouping (tier), and lists the tiers. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of status are reported (e.g., counts, health, versions), and without an output schema, the agent has limited knowledge of the return format.

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 schema is empty. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional param semantics are needed.

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 verb 'Reporta' (reports) with the resource 'estado del conocimiento' and explicitly enumerates the tiers (built-in/knowledge/workspace/custom), making its function unambiguous and differentiated from sibling status tools like rag_status or storage_status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling status tools (rag_status, storage_status, etc.), nor any conditions or prerequisites. It only states the function.

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