Service status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds the crucial behavioral model: workers scale to zero, a cold tool costs a few minutes once before work starts, and that cost stacks on top of the job's own run time. It also states there is no cost and no job started — exactly the context an agent needs to set user expectations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core question, followed by the mechanism and then the practical implication. No filler — every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With one optional parameter, a full output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything remaining: what `warm` and the timing fields mean, why cold starts matter, and how to use the `notice` field. Nothing needed to call it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the `tool` parameter enumerates all valid tool names plus the omit-for-all behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces per-tool semantics ('A tool reported `warm: false`') but adds no syntax or selection detail beyond the schema.

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 question the tool answers — which Audial tools have a worker awake and what a cold one will cost — naming the concrete fields (`warm`, `expectedColdStartMs`, `expectedRunMs`). That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like `pipeline_status` (job tracking) and `list_results` (output retrieval), and the closing 'Nothing here starts a job or costs anything' further scopes it.

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?

It gives an explicit triggering condition: check it before starting a long job, and surface the `notice` text to the user when a tool is cold so the wait doesn't look like a hang. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to bother, so it falls just short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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