Scratchbook status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the content of the response (health, project list, detail) but does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only or non-mutating, nor mention any operational constraints like permissions or latency.

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?

One sentence compactly lists all key aspects: health, indexed projects with counts, and optional per-project detail. No redundancy or filler, information-dense and well-structured.

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 status tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return components (health, project list, detail) sufficiently. It lacks finer specifics like possible health values or output format, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'project', describing it as 'Absolute project root to detail. Optional.' The description echoes this by saying 'detail for one project if given', adding no new semantics beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool reports scratchbook health and what's indexed, listing concrete outputs: embedding-service status, indexed projects with counts, and per-project detail. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like scratchbook_index or scratchbook_search, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 this is the tool for checking health and index state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is inferred from the tool's purpose rather than directly instructed.

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