Scheduler health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description reinforces this with 'side-effect-free' and adds what data the tool exposes (last tick, failures). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness, and the added value beyond annotations is limited.

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 very brief with only two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and content, while the second sentence is somewhat redundant given the annotations but still concise. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description provides some context by mentioning 'last tick, failures' as the health indicators. However, it does not specify the exact return format or how failures are represented, which could leave an agent uncertain about parsing the response. A bit more detail would round it out.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4; the description does not add parameter-specific information, but none is required.

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 identifies the tool as reporting the health of the background post scheduler, mentioning specific details like last tick and failures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like schedule_post and cancel_post, which perform actions rather than report status. The implicit verb 'get/check' is clear from context.

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 implies the tool is used to inspect scheduler health, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative status tools (e.g., shorts_status, build_in_public_status). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is minimal.

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