local_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. It discloses what components are checked, which is transparent. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires any authentication. A health check is likely safe, but the description does not confirm this.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Check local worker health') and then lists the components. Every word is functional; no redundant or extraneous information.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It informs the agent what the tool checks. However, it does not hint at the return format (e.g., a status object per component). For a health check tool, specifying the output structure would be beneficial, but the current description is acceptable.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by listing the specific health aspects checked, which helps the agent understand what the tool inspects. No further parameter documentation is needed.

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 explicitly states the tool checks local worker health and lists specific components (provider, endpoint, model, circuit breaker, cache). This provides a clear verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_task or cache_stats, which have different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it's for health checks, the description does not mention when to use it or when to prefer siblings (e.g., delegate_task for delegation, cache_stats for cache status). Usage is implied but not stated.

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