status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by defining default semantics ('absent = stable'), citing the spec sections governing each breakdown, and disclosing the result-shape branch: at a knowledgebase root without bundle=, per-bundle summaries are nested under `bundles`. It also states a concrete behavioral rule for the queues (five oldest or largest each), which the agent could not guess.

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?

No filler — every clause names a distinct output section — but it is delivered as one long run-on with semicolons and parenthetical §-references, making it hard to scan for the field that matters. Front-loading 'Bundle summary:' helps, yet the queue enumeration and the root-level nesting caveat are buried at the end.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so in unusual detail — field groups, queue composition and cap, and the nested `bundles` variant. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only exact field names and empty-state behavior are left unspecified.

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 0%, so the description has to carry both parameters and it largely does: `due_days` is defined in terms of the `stale_after` window, and `bundle` is explained through its observable effect (omitting it at a knowledgebase root yields a per-bundle `bundles` map). It never states the empty-string default or the conflict behavior if an invalid bundle is passed, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 enumerates precisely what the report contains (concept counts by type/status/trust tier, stale counts, unparseable files, okf_version, conformance and lint totals, plus upkeep queues), which is well beyond a restatement of the name 'status'. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings by describing an aggregate overview rather than a list, search, or lint pass, and explains the relationship to `bundles` at a knowledgebase root. The only shortfall is that the operative verb ('report/summarize') has to be inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of upkeep queues, stale counts, and conformance totals signals this is the health/overview check, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' clause and no 'use X instead when…' routing against `lint`, `list`, or `bundles`. The `due_days` explanation ('`stale_after` within due_days') does give a hint about the one configurable behavior. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer selection.

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