BCQuality server status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific information returned, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that lists all key outputs. It is concise, with no extraneous words, and immediately informs the agent of the tool's purpose.

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 has no parameters, annotations indicating safety, and an output schema likely detailing the return structure, the description covers the essential information. It could benefit from a brief note on when to use this status tool versus other tools, but overall it is adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it fully describes the output, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a status snapshot including clone path, source, commit, layers, article counts, and index age. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on retrieving specific knowledge items, examples, or domains.

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 implies this tool is for getting a general server status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like bcquality_refresh or status of specific knowledge. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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