rag_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. It discloses what the tool returns (index status, source configurations, statistics) and the types of information (total chunks, last update times). It does not mention side effects, but 'get status' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context beyond the name.

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 concise, with only two short sections. However, there is slight redundancy: the first paragraph mentions total chunks, configured sources, and last update times, while the 'Returns:' block repeats similar fields (index status, source configurations, statistics). It is not overly lengthy but could be tightened.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing the dict fields and their semantics. It gives enough context for an agent to know the purpose and output shape, though a more detailed return structure would improve completeness.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate. The schema coverage is 100% (empty), so no gaps exist.

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 function: 'Get the status of the RAG documentation index.' It specifies the resource (RAG documentation index) and the action (get status), and it lists concrete return details (total chunks, configured sources, last update times), which differentiates it from sibling tools like rag_search or rag_update.

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 the tool is for checking index status, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like rag_update or rag_search. There are no exclusion statements or named alternatives, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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