grow_worker_pool

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the operation but omits any side effects, safety implications, permissions required, or whether the change is immediate or queued.

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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices essential details for brevity. While not verbose, it under-delivers on necessary information given the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions.

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 description is insufficient for the tool's complexity. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter semantics, even though an output schema exists. The minimal information leaves agents with significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters ('workername' or 'n'). For example, valid values, constraints, or effects of 'n' are missing, leaving agents without critical context for parameter usage.

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 action ('grow'), the resource ('worker's process pool'), and the amount ('by n processes'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'shrink_worker_pool' and 'autoscale_worker_pool' by specifying manual growth.

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 alternatives like 'autoscale_worker_pool' or prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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