trinity_worker_daemon

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description discloses that start/stop modify local process state and PID files. It also lists response fields (running, started, stopped, pid, pid_file). This adds meaningful context beyond annotations, though it could mention side effects or required permissions.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and quickly elaborate on actions and effects. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior. It mentions response fields, which partially compensates for missing output schema. However, it could describe the process state lifecycle or interactions with other tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description rephrases the action enum values (status, start, stop) but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: starting, stopping, or checking a local background worker process. It uses specific verbs (start, stop, status) and identifies the resource (local background worker process for one agent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trinity_worker, which likely manage other worker aspects.

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 usage guidance for each action (status for check, start for queue draining, stop for termination) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or indicate when not to use this tool. Context is present but limited.

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