skypilot_pool_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that status, counts, and resource information are returned, but this largely duplicates the output schema. The default all-pools behavior is a useful behavioral detail, though no auth/rate-limit context is provided.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by return contents and parameter behavior. No superfluous language, though it could arguably combine the last two sentences for tighter structure.

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 simple read-only status tool with an existing output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return contents, and default behavior adequately. The main gap is explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling pool 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the only parameter's effect clearly: providing pool_names filters results, omitting them returns all pools. It does not specify the expected string format, but the parameter name and behavior are well covered.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get the status') and resource ('worker pools'), and describes the returned data. An agent can easily distinguish this from siblings like pool_apply, pool_down, and pool_logs, which perform different actions.

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?

Provides a default-behavior note ('If no pool_names provided, returns all pools') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pool_logs, pool_apply, or cluster_status. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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