rag_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral guarantee (no note contents are exposed) and implies a read-only status check, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, data freshness, or whether the metadata is cheap or expensive to compute.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core function, followed by the most important privacy caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless status tool, the description covers what it returns and what it deliberately omits. It is slightly thin on output format and error/edge behavior (e.g., empty or missing index), but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 0-param baseline applies. The description consequently has no parameter meanings to add; the empty schema is sufficient.

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 exact resource (index health metadata), lists concrete examples (document/chunk counts, schema version), and contrasts itself with note contents, clearly distinguishing it from read_note, search_notes, and rag_search. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 given for when to call this tool versus rag_reindex or rag_search. The word 'health' implies diagnostics, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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