get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only operation returning real-time data, listing specific output categories. This is sufficient transparency for a status tool, though it doesn't mention authentication or rate limits.

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, efficient sentence that covers the tool's purpose and output without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the description listing key output categories, the description is fairly complete. However, it could briefly mention the optional workspace_id parameter for full context.

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 input schema has one optional parameter (workspace_id) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. A higher score would require explaining the parameter's role.

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 states the tool returns real-time status and statistics about the Turbocontext vector store, specifying concrete data like database size, chunk counts, etc. This differentiates it from sibling tools (index_workspace, search_code, etc.) that perform different actions.

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 description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when needing status or stats), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. This is adequate for a simple status tool but lacks depth.

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