worker_status

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

The read-only claim merely restates readOnlyHint=true, so it adds nothing beyond the annotations. The description does add real behavioral context by saying the response is the persisted job lifecycle record, telling the agent it is reading stored state rather than live execution output. It says nothing about what happens for unknown ids or how stale records are handled.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The 'This is read-only' clause is somewhat redundant given the annotations, mildly reducing efficiency.

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 read tool with explicit readOnlyHint and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials. It leaves gaps on id provenance and failure behavior for an unknown id, which are relevant for an agent to call it confidently.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. 'By id' identifies it as the job identifier, but it does not say where such an id comes from (worker_enqueue or worker_list output) or whether it is a name or opaque handle.

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: read a worker job by its id, and qualifies it as 'no-shell local' to distinguish the job type. It implicitly separates itself from worker_list (single lookup by id) without naming any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this is the single-job retrieval path rather than listing or running, which is enough to infer usage against worker_list or worker_run_read_only. But no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is named, so the guidance is only implied.

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