status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it makes clear this is a non-mutating diagnostic that reports state rather than changing it, and it spells out each diagnostic dimension returned. It does not address cost, whether the call is expensive on large memories, or how it behaves when the memory does not exist.

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 what-it-reports content is front-loaded and the usage condition follows, so the reader hits the essential information first. The long enumeration of diagnostics is dense but each item is distinct and informative. Two sentences, no filler.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description substitutes effectively for a missing return-value spec by enumerating the diagnostic fields. The default-memory case is covered by the schema, and the diagnostic framing tells the agent how to interpret results. Little an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already lists every accepted form (<org>/<repo>, hf:// URI, local path, local) plus the omitted-default behavior. The prose adds only a passing hint about remotes this host pushes to, so the baseline of 3 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 opens with a specific resource and enumerates exactly what is reported: indexed chunks, session languages, chunks awaiting embedding, sessions awaiting indexing, and remote push lag. That is far more than a restatement of the name 'status'. It stops short of naming any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the boundary with get/recall/scan rather than being told.

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?

"Call it when a read comes back empty or thinner than expected" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly positions it after a read tool. That is real when-to-use guidance with an implicit alternative. It does not name a specific sibling or state any when-not condition, which keeps it out of the top band.

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