status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a non-destructive read operation. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or any potential side effects, which are minimal for a status check.

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, well-structured sentence. Every element ('Get system status including...') earns its place with no redundancy.

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 stateless, parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the key output categories. A minor improvement would be noting it's read-only, but not essential.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the status output includes (documents, chunks, size, config), which helps the agent understand the return content.

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 'Get system status' and lists the specific types of information returned (total documents, chunks, database size, config). It's a specific verb+resource that distinguishes from siblings like delete_file or ingest_data.

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 the tool is for retrieving system health/configuration, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. No when-not or sibling comparisons are provided.

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