Seed From Inventory

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar here is lower. The description does add real, non-obvious behavioral context: an optional tunnel-manager dependency that degrades to a named, cause-preserving error instead of ImportError, and the fact that host_loss_reconcile is permanently non-functional. That is meaningful, but it covers only a slice of the tool's behavior and says nothing about side effects or authorization for the other operations.

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 short and free of repetition, but it front-loads implementation trivia ('Composes RMDD-15's repository_manager.remote_execution package with the RMDD-08 CapacityInventory resource ledger') that does not help an agent select or call the tool, while omitting the operation set that would. The prose is reasonably tight but the emphasis is misplaced.

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?

This is a complex 35-parameter, zero-required, multi-operation tool with an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It does, however, need to explain what operations exist and how to select them, which it never does; the operations are only inferable from parameter descriptions. For a tool of this complexity, that is a substantial omission.

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 every parameter carries a 'For <operation>:' description, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain how the operation itself is selected). Baseline 3 is appropriate when coverage is this high.

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 opening line 'Seed from inventory (rm_remote_workers)' mostly restates the name/title, and the follow-on 'Remote worker registry, immutable source staging, and artifact transport' is a topic list rather than a specific verb+resource. It never explains what seeding actually does, nor does it distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools it overlaps (rm_remote_workers_register_worker, rm_remote_workers_stage_source, rm_remote_workers_recheck, rm_remote_workers_receive_artifact, rm_remote_workers_dispatch_build, rm_remote_workers_host_loss_reconcile). An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a distinct operation or a multiplexed superset.

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 gives some when-not behavior (recheck/live remote dispatch refuse without tunnel-manager; host_loss_reconcile always refuses), which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over the numerous dedicated rm_remote_workers_* siblings, and no explanation of how the agent selects among the operations implied by the 35 'For <op>:' parameters. Context is asserted but selection is left entirely to inference.

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