company_kb_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The description clearly frames this as a read-only diagnostic ('Check configuration...') and explains what aspects it inspects. It stops short of explicitly stating 'does not modify anything,' but 'status' and 'Check' strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second provides concrete trigger conditions. Everything included 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the operation is a simple health/status check, the description covers the essential context: what is checked and when to use it. No critical information appears to be missing.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not introduce unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names concrete resources: configuration, GitLab authentication, repository sync state, and index size. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from the sibling operation tools like company_kb_sync or company_kb_search.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'when search looks stale or broken' and 'when the user asks whether the MCP server is healthy.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives.

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