rag_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Verifica' implies a read-only, non-destructive action, but the description does not disclose return values, error behavior, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the vault is not indexed). It provides minimal but non-contradictory transparency.

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 short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It earns its place perfectly.

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?

The tool has a minimal schema and no output schema, but the description still leaves gaps: it does not explain the meaning of target_path, what 'opt-in' entails, or what kind of status output to expect. Given the lack of annotations, the description is under-specified for complete understanding, despite the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema lists a single optional parameter, target_path, with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain target_path at all, leaving its purpose completely unclear. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema field name.

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 specifies the tool's function: checking whether the project vault is indexed for RAG. The verb 'Verifica' (checks) plus the resource ('vault del proyecto indexado para RAG') provides a specific and actionable purpose. It differentiates from sibling status tools like connect_status or knowledge_status by explicitly focusing on RAG indexing.

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 mention of 'opt-in' gives an implied usage condition: the tool is only relevant for projects that opted into RAG. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. It leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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