paxg_worker_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact threshold (30 seconds), the possible reasons for false status (db_missing, no_heartbeat), and the recommended remediation command. This is rich behavioral detail for a health-check tool, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first line, then providing result details and an actionable command in two sentences. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what returns look like. It does so clearly: alive=true/false with reasons, and a follow-up action. For a simple health-check tool, this is complete and self-contained, covering all necessary context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description instead explains the output semantics, which is the relevant information for the user.

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 a health check for the local PAXG tick-capture worker, with a specific behavior: returning alive=true if the last tick is fresher than 30 seconds. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_paxg_tick or diagnostic, as it focuses on worker status rather than data retrieval or general diagnostics.

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 provides clear conditions for action: if alive=false with reason=db_missing or no_heartbeat, start the worker with a specific command. This gives explicit guidance on when to use the result, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool. The conditional action effectively conveys usage context.

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