get_dispatch_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a GET (read-only) operation, states the readiness condition it verifies, and describes the return shape as { ready, reasons }. It does not detail the contents of reasons, but that is acceptable for this simple readiness probe.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the purpose, endpoint, return structure, and usage timing with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool checks, when to call it, the HTTP endpoint, and what it returns. No critical information is missing.

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 only parameter, number_of_nodes, is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it checks server dispatch readiness and completed server/node plugin setup, and even names the endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named get_status.

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?

It gives explicit invocation context: 'call it before queueing work after a restart.' This provides clear timing guidance for the agent, but it does not mention exclusions or alternatives such as get_status or get_server_time.

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