evidence_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is local-only, takes no parameters, clarifies that an empty index means the user hasn't run docmancer setup, and describes the return object (path and counts). This goes beyond the bare annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense, opening with the core purpose and then covering usage guidance, exclusions, and return shape without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, this description fully equips the agent: it explains what the tool does, when to call it, what it returns, and how it differs from related tools. No critical gaps remain, and the lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of return contents.

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 and the schema covers 100% of them (none). The description explicitly reaffirms 'takes no parameters', so the agent can be confident no arguments are needed. Per the rubric, no-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4.

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 defines the tool as a read-only diagnostic for the local evidence index used by search_evidence, specifying that it reports presence, population, path, and source/section counts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from context_status and context_delivery, ensuring no ambiguity about its role.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call it first when search_evidence returns nothing, to tell an empty index apart from a genuine miss.' It also states when not to use it and names the correct alternatives (context_status, context_delivery), making tool selection unambiguous.

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