everything_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the core behavior (status check) but does not disclose whether the tool starts the engine, the return format, or side effects. Given the simplicity of a status check, some might expect a boolean or status object, but that is not explicitly conveyed.

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 sentence with no fluff. It immediately states the action and subject, making it easy to parse. Every word carries meaning.

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 tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema). However, since no output schema exists, the description should explain what the return value is, but it does not. For a status check, knowing whether it returns a boolean, a status object, or a string is important for downstream use. The description is adequate for selection but not fully complete for invocation.

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. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. The empty schema is fully consistent, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 checks whether the Everything search engine is running and its database is loaded. The verb 'Check' and specific resources ('running', 'database loaded') distinguish it from siblings like everything_search (searching) and everything_version (version info).

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 is a pre-flight check before using other Everything tools, but it does not explicitly say when to use it or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion or comparison to siblings, so the usage context is only implied.

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