Embeddings Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific scope (embedding provider and vector-index status) but doesn't disclose what the status output contains, whether it performs any checks that could be slow, or what failure modes exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. The output schema presumably documents the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The only minor gap is not naming sibling alternatives for disambiguation, but the tool's purpose is clear enough given the sibling list.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description correctly indicates the tool takes no input and simply checks status. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately conveys that no parameters are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('embedding provider and vector-index status'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_index_status and build_embeddings by focusing on status checking rather than building or indexing, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage context: it's a read-only status check for embeddings and vector-index health. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_index_status or build_embeddings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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