knowledge_status

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

The description indicates that the tool returns status data, but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what happens if the LLM connection is down, or if it requires authentication. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key details. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose adequately. It could mention read-only behavior or caching, but the current level is sufficient for a status overview tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description naturally adds no parameter meaning. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 provides an overview of knowledge base status, specifying three aspects: item count, type distribution, and LLM connection status. This verb+resource+details format makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_search or knowledge_learn.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies it's for checking status, but does not mention alternatives or scenarios where other tools might be preferred. Given the presence of five sibling tools, this is a notable gap.

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