get_worker_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return content (battery percentage and charging status), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., worker not found), authentication requirements, or other side effects, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It delivers the key purpose immediately and is highly concise, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description lacks output schema, annotations, and sufficient context to fully inform an agent. It does not explain how to use the tool in conjunction with sibling tools, what the output format looks like, or whether worker_name must reference an existing worker. Given the complexity signals (no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning to the only parameter, worker_name. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not clarify how to obtain the worker name or what constitutes a valid worker, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it returns battery percentage and charging status of a worker, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('worker'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_worker_system_stats, which likely cover broader system stats, and list_workers, which lists workers rather than retrieving info.

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 such as get_worker_system_stats or get_all_workers_system_stats. The description simply states what the tool does without hinting at appropriate scenarios or limitations.

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