get_ingest_status_tool

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool checks 'status and health' and advises checking before assuming missing documents. It could be more explicit about what 'health' entails (e.g., queue length, errors), but the output schema likely covers this.

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: two sentences plus usage guidelines. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers when to use and not use, but could provide slightly more detail on what the status/health includes. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 in the input schema, so baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids any redundant information.

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 purpose: 'Get ingest queue status and health for this MCP server's index.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on ingestion status distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle documents, search, and chapters.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when search returns nothing, the user added new PDFs, ingestion may still be running, or they ask whether documents are ready') and when not to use ('Do not use on every message—only when index readiness or failures matter'). Provides clear context and exclusions.

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