get_retrieval_status

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

The description indicates it is a read operation returning 'compact diagnostics', but does not disclose what specific information is included, any side effects, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description provides a basic but not thorough behavioral profile.

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, highly concise and front-loaded. It conveys the core purpose without excess, but could be slightly expanded for completeness.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain what 'compact diagnostics' entails or how the agent should interpret the output, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description adds no conflict with the schema. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description confirms the no-param structure.

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 a specific verb 'returns' and identifies the resource as 'diagnostics for the local structured retrieval system', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, apply, or list assets.

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?

No guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor any mention of alternatives. The description assumes the agent understands the context of 'local structured retrieval system' without elaboration.

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