worker_status

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the main behavioral traits are covered. The description adds some context about what information is shown (budget, connectivity, etc.), but does not disclose additional behaviors like data freshness, error conditions, or permission requirements. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence with 9 words, no filler, and front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the key aspects of what the tool shows. However, it does not mention the output format or any limitations (e.g., real-time vs cached data). With output schema present, this is acceptable but leaves minor gaps.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, and the schema description already explains its purpose and default value. The description mentions 'available models' but does not elaborate on the parameter beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter information.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: showing worker health including budget, connectivity, models, and usage stats. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and lists distinct categories, making it easy to understand. The purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_health.

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 usage when needing worker health information, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vault_health) or when not to use it. No exclusions or complementary tools are mentioned.

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