status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. Does not mention rate limits, authorization, or whether it requires special permissions. Adequate but not thorough.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose and output concisely. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description provides a list of returned properties (documents, chunks, size, config). It does not detail the structure or format of the response, but for a simple status tool this is likely sufficient. It could be more complete by specifying the response type (e.g., JSON object).

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?

There are no parameters, so the description carries no parameter information. However, the description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns (total documents, total chunks, etc.), which goes beyond the empty schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is high, and the description meets it.

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 it retrieves system status and lists specific information types (documents, chunks, database size, configuration). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_file or query_documents.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not indicate that it's read-only, or that it might be called before other operations. Sibling tools imply other actions, but no explicit comparisons are given.

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