status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by listing the specific statistics returned (document count, section count, etc.), but it does not describe return shape or whether this is a live aggregation versus a cached snapshot. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loading the operation (Get) and resource (knowledge base status), then enumerating the included metrics. There is no filler and every phrase adds relevant detail.

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, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the operation and the information delivered. The only gap is that the exact output format is not specified, but no output schema exists and the printed metric names provide sufficient expectation for an agent.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema covers 100% of parameters trivially, and the description's mention of status outputs is not needed for parameter understanding.

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 names the operation (get) and the target (knowledge base status), and it lists the concrete metrics included (document count, section count, index size, cache statistics). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check or content, but no sibling is a direct status duplicate, so the risk of confusion is limited.

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 purpose statement implies usage: call this when you need status or health statistics for the knowledge base. However, the description provides no explicit when/when-not guidance compared to sibling tools such as check, content, or gc, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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