emet_status

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

With readOnlyHint=false already declared, the description explains why: probe:true writes a document, reads it back, then removes it, so the agent understands the write and its cleanup rather than assuming a pure read. That closes the apparent gap between a 'status' tool and a non-read-only annotation. It does not cover auth requirements or failure modes.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the diagnostic scope comes first, then the probe semantics, then the routing hint. The parenthetical list of replaced tools is the only slightly bulky element, but it earns its place as a migration cue.

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 carries the burden of describing the return surface - and it does, enumerating environment, database, collections, index, identity/user documents, and counts. Combined with the probe explanation and the emet_initialize route, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the rationale - 'a read alone cannot reveal a broken write path' - which tells the agent why probe exists, not just what it does.

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?

States a specific purpose - a one-call diagnostic - and enumerates exactly what it reports (environment, database, collections, vector index, identity/user docs, per-layer counts and health). It also names the siblings it replaces and distinguishes itself from emet_initialize, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer emet_initialize for a normal session start' names the alternative and its condition, and the probe parameter is scoped to 'after a deploy or a configuration change'. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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