get_worker_system_stats

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses only that the tool returns data, implying a read operation, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential errors (e.g., worker not found), side effects, or the exact nature of 'full system statistics'.

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, immediately front-loaded with the action ('Returns full system statistics'). Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should supply information about return values and error behavior. It does not; it only gives a vague notion of 'full system statistics.' The tool is simple, but the description leaves the agent uncertain about what data will be returned and what could go wrong.

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 one parameter, worker_name, with 0% description coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'specific worker,' which does little beyond the parameter's title. It does not explain how to obtain or validate the worker name, nor any format requirements.

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 function: 'Returns full system statistics of a specific worker.' The verb 'returns' and resource 'system statistics' are specific, and the phrase 'specific worker' distinguishes it from sibling tools that return stats for all workers or by location. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it's not a 5.

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 get_all_workers_system_stats or get_worker_info. The description simply states the action without any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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