get_system_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. It discloses the information categories returned, which adds some transparency, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention any permissions or rate limits, or describe how data is aggregated. The tool name and nature imply safety, but the description alone lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the key output categories. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing the main returned components. It could be improved by explicitly noting this aggregates information available via siblings like index_status and list_related_projects, but it does not require further detail for basic invocation.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the output categories. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which fits.

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 checks the overall state of search-docs and specifies the returned categories (configuration status, index info, related projects). This is a specific verb+resource description, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like index_status or list_related_projects, though the broader scope is implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus more specific alternatives such as index_status or list_related_projects. The description only lists what it returns, leaving usage context entirely implicit without exclusions or alternatives.

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