processor_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable operational details: the auto-disable behavior after 10 raises, the poll interval default of 50ms, and the relationship to throughput_ratio in stream_status. This is meaningful transparency about system behavior beyond a simple read operation, though it doesn't state whether the tool itself has side effects or is purely diagnostic.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional diagnostic nuance (poll interval, disable-after-10, throughput_ratio) is concise and earns its place. Slightly verbose in the middle section but every sentence contributes meaningful operational context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is covered structurally. The tool is diagnostic in nature with one parameter, and the description covers purpose, metrics interpretation, and failure behavior. While it doesn't explicitly describe the return structure, the output schema handles that, making the description reasonably complete for a reporting tool.

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 100%, so the single session_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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 reports attached processors, their health, and their cost. The verb 'report' with specific resources (processors, health, cost) makes the purpose explicit. While sibling tools like list_processors exist, the health/cost focus differentiates this tool's reporting function from a plain listing.

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 provides strong diagnostic context on what metrics to watch (mean_ms, max_ms vs the poll interval) and explains the starvation scenario, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool vs the sibling list_processors or stream_status. The guidance about throughput_ratio referencing stream_status implies related tools but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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