Profile

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: tunnel-manager is optional at import time and missing dependencies produce named, cause-preserving errors instead of ImportError, and host_loss_reconcile unconditionally refuses. This is useful disclosure, though much of it applies to sibling operations rather than this tool itself.

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 not front-loaded with purpose and instead leads with internal package composition and RMDD-15/RMDD-08 cross-references that do not help an agent decide or invoke. Only a minority of the sentences earn their place for tool selection.

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?

For a 35-parameter tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description should at minimum state what the tool does and how its many operation-specific parameters are selected. It never does, leaving the core action and parameter-selection model unexplained.

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% across 35 parameters, so the schema already carries the full burden of per-parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, which matches the baseline-3 rule for high coverage schemas.

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 restates the tool name ('Profile (rm_remote_workers)') and then lists the subsystem's domain ('remote worker registry, immutable source staging, and artifact transport') without ever stating what this tool actually does or returns. It describes the package composition rather than the tool's action, so an agent cannot tell what invoking rm_remote_workers_profile accomplishes.

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?

There is some implicit guidance — recheck/live remote dispatch refuse without tunnel-manager, and host_loss_reconcile always refuses today — but these read as failure-mode notes about other operations, not when-to-use-this-tool guidance. No alternatives among the many rm_remote_workers_* siblings are named or differentiated.

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