knowledge_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only status inspection but never explicitly states that it has no side effects, requires no auth, or is safe to call repeatedly. Return values are covered by the output schema, which lifts this slightly above the floor.

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?

Two compact lines, front-loaded with what the tool does and then the critical call-order directive. The only minor waste is the '+' conjunction and duplicated bilingual phrasing, but nothing is padded.

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-param tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose and call ordering are clear. The gap is the failure path — it never says what to do (e.g., call setup_knowledge) when the Knowledge Dir is not yet configured, which is the most likely follow-up an agent needs.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema is effectively complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 states a specific action: check whether the Knowledge Dir (workspace basic or remote station) is configured, plus summarize its current state. That is a concrete verb+resource pair, not a restatement of the name. Sibling differentiation is only implicit (setup_knowledge is the write counterpart), so it stops short of a 5.

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 ordering rule — call this FIRST before every knowledge workflow — and enumerates the affected commands (/pbi-new, /pbi-scan, /pbi-done, /pbi-pack, /pbi-recall). It does not, however, name the alternative to invoke when the check fails (setup_knowledge) or state any when-not condition.

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