idleStatus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does so adequately: 'Return' plus 'current ... counters' plus 'poll' makes clear this is a non-blocking read-only snapshot rather than a mutation or a blocking wait. What remains implicit is that it does not wait for idle and returns immediately even when work is pending, which is the one behavioral trait that would most change how an agent sequences the call.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The return contents come first and the usage scenario second, so the agent gets the 'what' before the 'when'. Every clause carries information: each of the three counters is named, and the remember()/recall() context is specific rather than generic.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain the return shape, and with no parameters and no annotations this is a low-complexity tool that the text covers well. The only material omission is the relationship to waitForIdle — whether to poll this or block on that — which is exactly the decision an agent faces when background work is in flight.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no risk of undocumented inputs. Baseline for a no-param tool is 4, and the description does nothing to lower it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return current background-work counters') and enumerates exactly which counters: extraction queue depth, in-flight enrichment, in-flight embeddings. That is far more precise than the bare name idleStatus. It stops short of a 5 because it never names its obvious sibling waitForIdle, so the agent must infer the polling-vs-blocking split from the surrounding tool list.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario: poll after a burst of remember() calls, before recall(), for a clean retrieval measurement. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to named siblings. It offers no when-not or exclusion, and does not say why an agent would poll here rather than call waitForIdle, which is the main alternative an agent would weigh.

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