smart_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what 'index statistics' include, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('check if smart features are enabled' and 'get index statistics') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it maximally concise.

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 complexity of checking system features and statistics, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what 'smart features' or 'index statistics' entail, the format of the response, or any error conditions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing nonexistent parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('check' and 'get') and resources ('smart features' and 'index statistics'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document' or 'search_documents', which might also provide status information in different contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for document operations, there's no indication if this is for system-level checks, document-specific status, or other contexts, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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