get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and side-effect-free. The description adds that it pertains to 'cache and index status', which is useful but minimal. No hidden behaviors or side effects are disclosed, but given the annotations, the bar is lower and the description is consistent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool with strong annotations.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params), clear annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the minimal description is largely sufficient. It could mention the nature of the status (e.g., 'last updated time') but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it meets the needs for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add param details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Get cache and index status' clearly specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'cache and index status'. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on reading or searching content, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives like search tools or refresh_docs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the listed siblings (e.g., checking cache freshness before reading vs. searching or refreshing). The description gives no context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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