get_corpus_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic operation.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, given the vague schema, it is too brief and sacrifices necessary detail. It could be longer to cover parameter usage.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque parameter, the description fails to provide complete context. The agent lacks information about the status object structure, when to use the tool, and how to specify the query or corpus id.

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 schema has one parameter 'kwargs' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it is for a 'query or corpus id', but does not specify how to structure the kwargs, leaving the agent to guess the format.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'corpus status', specifying it is for a query or corpus id. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_candidates' or 'build_corpus', which might also be read-related.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites or situations where getting the status is appropriate, leaving the agent without direction.

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