BCQuality server status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces non-mutating behavior with 'Returns...'. It adds useful operational context beyond annotations by enumerating exactly what state is exposed (clone source precedence, actual vs configured remote, in-memory index age).

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?

A single dense sentence packs ten distinct pieces of returned information without fluff drugs, but the long enumeration makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 parameters players, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the observable behavior well; it doesn't explain when to call it or what triggers a stale index, but that is not essential for a status check.

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 zero parameters)Skip no param documentation needed. The output descriptor compensates for the empty input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') tied to a clear resource ('active clone path', index age, article counts), and the detailed field list makes it obvious this is the read-only status snapshot tool distinct from sibling search/list/get/refresh operations.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like bcquality_refresh or bcquality_search_knowledge. The context is implied by the title and 'server status' framing, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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