ghl_kb_crawler_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the endpoint and source details but no additional behavior (e.g., what 'latest operation' means, error handling, or response structure). With annotations present, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lines: a clear action statement and an endpoint reference. It is concise but the second line (Endpoint: ...) is somewhat technical and may not be essential for an agent. No wasted words, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 has no output schema, and the description does not explain what information the status provides (e.g., progress, errors, completion percentage). For a read operation, this leaves the agent guessing about the return format. Sibling tools suggest multiple crawler operations, so more context would help.

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?

All three parameters (locationId, operationId, knowledgeBaseId) are fully described in the input schema with types and examples. The description does not add any extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is given.

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 'Get crawling status for the latest operation', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling crawler tools like ghl_kb_crawler_train or ghl_kb_crawler_discover, which might also involve status tracking.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative crawler tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions.

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