research_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'show' and 'readiness', suggesting a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify what exactly is shown (e.g., status details, error states, or performance metrics), how it behaves (e.g., real-time vs. cached data), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence: 'Show extraction capabilities and companion plugin readiness.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more specific to improve clarity. For its brevity, it efficiently conveys the core idea without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely provides status or diagnostic information. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., capabilities list, readiness status, error messages), how to interpret results, or any dependencies. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should do more to guide the agent on what to expect.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are no parameters to explain. It appropriately avoids redundant information, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or omission in this context.

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 'Show extraction capabilities and companion plugin readiness' states a general purpose but is vague and ambiguous. It doesn't specify what resource or system it refers to, nor does it clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'extract_batch' or 'extract_content'. The phrase 'extraction capabilities' could overlap with those siblings, and 'companion plugin readiness' is unclear without context.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compile_report', 'extract_batch', or 'extract_content'. The description implies a diagnostic or status-checking function, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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