status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, nor anything about permissions, cost, or behavior when an upgrade is not running. The mention of 'the running upgrade' hints at conditional output but is not explained.

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 compact sentence with the subject front-loaded. It is efficient, though the trailing 'or the running upgrade' adds ambiguity rather than clarity about what selects each output.

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?

An output schema exists and there are no parameters, which lowers the disclosure burden, but the description presents multiple possible outputs without explaining what determines which one is returned. For a diagnostic tool with this many overlapping siblings, that ambiguity leaves the agent short of what it needs to invoke confidently.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names concrete things it reports (document counts, config, chunk counts, running upgrade), so the purpose is inferable, but the verb and scope are fuzzy and it gives no signal distinguishing it from siblings like model_show, wiki_status, or crawl_status. An agent could not confidently pick this over those without opening schemas.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the numerous other status-like siblings (wiki_status, crawl_status, model_show) or any prerequisites. Only implied usage at best.

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