corpus_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does hint at read-only behavior via 'status' and lists what output fields to expect, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify whether it accesses external systems, whether there are any side effects, or how fresh the data is. It also introduces 'capability notes' without explaining what that means. This is some value but not rich context.

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 sentence with a clear, front-loaded subject ('Quick status') followed by a colon and a compact list. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (which presumably defines the fields like path and mode), and a status check is a low-complexity operation, the description is mostly complete. It names the distinct output components, though 'capability notes' is left open-ended. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so this is sufficient for 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema coverage burden. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related details that would be needed. The description's enumeration of output fields is irrelevant to parameter semantics.

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 uses 'Quick status' to signal a lightweight overview and explicitly lists the output components (path, mode, partitions, part count, capability notes). It clearly identifies the resource as 'corpus' and distinguishes this as a status tool rather than a detailed inventory or search tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like corpus_inventory or index_summary, which may also provide structural information.

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. It does not mention when a quick status is preferred over corpus_inventory or server_info, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the word 'quick' but not explicitly stated.

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