ds_monitor_workers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'check' and phrase 'verify task executors are alive' strongly imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it performs no modifications, nor does it mention any failure behaviors or side effects. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and target resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 monitoring tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does and the specific verification it performs. It could mention output format or behavior expectations, but given the tool's simplicity, completeness is largely adequate.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail needed. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe, but the schema coverage is effectively complete.

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: 'Check DS worker node status' with a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical 'verify task executors are alive' adds specificity and distinguishes it from the sibling tool ds_monitor_masters, which presumably checks master nodes.

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 implies use for checking worker node health, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like ds_monitor_masters. There's a clear implied context from the name and description, but no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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