get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output format (JSON string) and specifies the data fields returned, which gives a clear picture of behavior. However, it does not explicitly note side-effect-free/read-only status, though 'report' implies it. This is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. The 'Returns:' section is slightly redundant with the opening list but clarifies the output type. The inclusion of example user queries adds value. It is concise enough, though a bit more trimming could make it tighter.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, low complexity). The description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. An output schema exists, but the description still adds contextual value. It is complete for the tool's scope.

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 description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The score reflects the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the exact resource ('local CrossRef database status'). It enumerates the reported elements (path, work count, FTS5 index size, citation-graph edge count, access mode), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools. There is no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool, including example user queries and the practical scenario of confirming DB usability before a search. It provides clear contextual triggers, satisfying the 'when-to-use' requirement even though no alternatives are needed because the tool is unique.

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