status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that this is a read-only getter returning a dictionary with specific categories (memory, indexed stats, embedding info, persistence), adding valuable context beyond just the tool name. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or mention side effects, but the wording strongly implies a non-mutating 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?

The description is reasonably concise but contains redundancy: 'comprehensive' appears twice, and the 'Returns:' line duplicates the earlier statement that it returns detailed information. The structure is front-loaded with the main verb, but the repetition slightly detracts from conciseness.

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 description plus the existing output schema provide sufficient context for a no-parameter status tool. It covers the key aspects of system status, mentions return type, and is clearly distinct from siblings. It does not discuss error conditions or prerequisites, but these are unlikely for a simple status getter, so the overall completeness is high.

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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and there is no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema already shows (100% coverage).

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 opens with 'Get system status and comprehensive statistics,' providing a clear verb and resource. It details what is included (memory usage, indexed content statistics, embedding provider info, persistence status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reset_index, index_filebase, discover, and search that perform different actions.

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 this tool is for checking system status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate, though the read-only nature is evident from the verb 'Get'.

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