Check Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it is safe to call repeatedly and does not write data or contact remote services, which supplements but does not contradict. No contradictions.

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 sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second provides usage guidelines and behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 zero input parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description fully informs about the return value (record-count metrics) and the tool's role. No gaps remain.

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 describes zero parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter details but mentions 'optional sync totals' which relates to output, not input. No missing information.

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 checks SQLite readiness and returns record-count metrics for specific entities (requests, correspondence, optional sync totals). It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives like sync_monitor and list_requests.

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 advises use as a first health probe or liveness check, and provides clear alternatives: prefer sync_monitor for queue/offline depth and list_requests for request content. No usage ambiguity.

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