enoch_probe_worker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds that it returns health, wake-gate, processes, and disk. This is helpful but doesn't disclose any hidden behaviors, such as whether it's a quick check or if it triggers a remote call.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but incomplete.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain parameter usage and expected return structure. It fails to do so, making the tool contextually incomplete.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the 'lane' or 'run_id' parameters. Their purpose (e.g., filtering workers) is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing.

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 'direct worker probe' and lists specific outputs (health, wake-gate, processes, disk). It distinguishes itself from sibling health tools that may be aggregate (e.g., enoch_core_health). However, it could be more explicit about the resource scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like enoch_core_health or enoch_worker_logs. It simply states what it does without context.

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