recover_workers

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description adds the key behavioral guarantee beyond that, namely that it only touches executions provably not running, which is what justifies destructiveHint=false for a tool that clears state. It does not state idempotency or the no-op case when nothing is orphaned, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope before the routing clauses; every clause carries information. It is slightly run-on with the nested parenthetical and two sibling references, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: scope, safety guarantee, trigger condition, and alternatives. Nothing required to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is already documented as the id returned by list_projects, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 and resource: clearing executions stuck in QUEUED/RUNNING that have no live worker holding their lock. The parenthetical failure mode (worker crashed or never started) narrows the scope further, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling maintenance tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — call when get_task_status.brief.progress.orphaned is true — and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: resume_pending_dispatch for an interrupted advance_project, cancel_task to abandon a task. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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