Get knowledge status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the network timeout behavior ('never blocks beyond a short timeout'), which is valuable. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state side effects or error behavior; however, the timeout note adds meaningful transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The core output (local vs remote, update availability, last check) is front-loaded, and the timeout behavior is appended as useful clarification. Every clause 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what status fields are returned and the network behavior. It doesn't specify exact output formatting, but without an output schema, this is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 baseline is 4. No parameter meaning is needed, and the description correctly focuses on what the status returns rather than any input semantics.

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 the tool reports local vs remote knowledge versions, update availability, and last check time. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('knowledge status'), and the content distinguishes it from siblings like update_knowledge or search_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 implies its use for status checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like update_knowledge or get_capability. Context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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