get_knowledge_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as reading from a registry (meta-tool), implying read-only. It explains the mechanism (register_domain_knowledge, per-domain constants) and return structure. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 brief (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No redundant or vague statements. It efficiently covers purpose, mechanism, and output structure.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (signaled), the description is complete. It explains what it does, how it works, and details the return structure. No gaps apparent for the agent to use it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so description does not need to add param info. It correctly has no parameter documentation. Baseline 4 given no params and 100% schema coverage.

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 it returns freshness status of registered business knowledge domains. It specifies the verb 'return', the resource 'freshness status', and the scope 'every registered business knowledge domain'. It provides details on registration mechanism and output structure, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_upstream_status'.

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 explains when the tool is appropriate: when needing freshness status of knowledge domains. It mentions that updating a KNOWLEDGE constant automatically flows through, and points to the project default date location. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list direct alternatives, though none are obvious from sibling list.

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