nest_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explicitly says 'Structure only; no content,' disclosing that content is not returned, which is a meaningful behavioral trait not available from annotations or 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 filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the clarifying 'Structure only; no content' is placed after the core purpose. 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, read-only annotations), and the description covers the return content and structural nature. However, since schema coverage is 0%, the description should at least hint at what app_id and db_path refer to. Its silence on parameters leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. However, the description does not explain 'app_id' or 'db_path' at all. It only indirectly hints at a database context via 'Nest DB,' but the actual meaning of the parameters is left to the schema field names, which are ambiguous without elaboration.

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 states a specific verb ('Counts') and resource ('seeded Nest DB'), and enumerates the exact dimensions counted (sources by status, fragments by type, topical categories by size). It also clarifies 'Structure only; no content,' which distinguishes it from content-retrieval siblings like nest_scan or nest_digest.

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 usage when count summaries are needed and when the DB is 'seeded,' but it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when NOT to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing guidance is provided, leaving some inference to the agent.

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