scheduler_status

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

With no annotations to cover behavior, the description adds real value by explaining exactly what status information is returned: whether each scheduler thread is alive, enabled, and active. This is sufficient for a simple read-only diagnostic tool, even though it does not mention authentication or side effects.

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 three short sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose, expands on the exact information returned, and then states the practical use case.

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 no-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It gives the agent enough to select the tool, understand what to expect, and judge when the result has diagnostic value.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already fully documents that fact, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Medusa scheduler and queue status'), and elaborates on what is shown: thread liveness, enabled state, and active state. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like postprocess or force_search, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives a clear practical use case: 'Useful for diagnosing stuck queues.' This implies when to reach for this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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