kb_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return ... information' reasonably implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the scoped output is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential behavior such as stale data, request cost, or whether the health check itself triggers a scan.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema and clearly named siblings, this description is largely complete. It could be improved by stating whether health reflects the current live index state or the last persisted scan, but the output schema may already cover return details.

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 the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description need not explain parameters because there are none; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('KnowledgeHub index health and last scan information'). This is distinct from the sibling tools, which all imply different operations (searching, reading, project context), so an agent can determine the tool's role immediately.

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 that the tool is for checking KnowledgeHub status and scan information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. There is no guidance about prerequisites, frequency, or interpretation of health results.

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