get_vector_status_tool

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

The only behavioral trait disclosed is deprecation. There is no mention of read-only nature, side effects, error behavior, or whether it delegates exactly to the canonical tool. Without annotations, this sparse description leaves much about runtime behavior unstated.

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, directly states the deprecation and alias relationship, and uses no superfluous words. It is appropriately brief for the narrow purpose of signaling a deprecated alias, though it omits useful context.

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 deprecated alias, the description references another tool but does not provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does, what inputs mean, or what outputs to expect. The sibling list includes 'get_vector_status' but the description does not point to it explicitly, leaving the description incomplete for autonomous use.

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 sole parameter 'project_id' has no description in the schema and the tool description adds no meaning. The agent is left to infer that it identifies a project, but receives no format, constraints, or usage hints. Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for 'get_vector_status', indicating it is a compatibility shim rather than a distinct function. It distinguishes from siblings by name, but does not explain what 'vector status' actually retrieves, leaving the primary purpose ambiguous without external knowledge.

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 labels the tool as deprecated but does not explicitly state that the canonical 'get_vector_status' should be used instead, nor does it provide conditions for when this alias might still be appropriate. No guidance is given on alternatives or migration paths.

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