get_scrape_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully reveal the return contents (page/chunk/section counts, last run info, pending and failed URL counts), which signals a non-destructive read, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, freshness guarantees, or whether counts are cumulative versus from the last run.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation first and then bullet-lists its contents in a compact enumeration. Every clause conveys distinct information about the payload, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must describe the result, which it does by enumerating the fields an agent will receive. It is close to complete for a simple read-only status tool, lacking only finer detail such as time scoping of the run info and failed-URL counts.

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 per the baseline this dimension starts at 4. The description has no parameter semantics to add and correctly introduces none, describing only the result payload.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current status of the indexed database') and enumerates exactly what the status comprises: total pages, chunks, sections breakdown, last scrape run info, and pending/failed URL counts. This clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings scrape_full and scrape_incremental, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a zero-parameter 'get status' tool is obviously meant for checking indexing state, and the listing of pending/failed URL counts hints at post-run verification. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the scrape siblings.

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