worker_status

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description explains that reachability is actively probed rather than inferred, and that configuration is reported separately from availability. It also notes removed dollar figures and the reasoning behind them, giving the agent crucial behavioral context.

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 opening sentence is succinct and front-loaded, but the rest is a long narrative about HIVE-384, the old output, and design rationale. Most of that detail is not necessary for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly, so the description is wordier than needed.

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 description is behaviorally rich and, together with the output schema and annotations, gives the agent a complete picture. It explains what the tool measures, what is intentionally excluded, and how reachability is resolved, leaving no critical gap for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the include_models parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning 'model' as one health dimension, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Show worker health: configuration, reachability, model, and usage,' which is a specific verb plus resource and outcome. It clearly distinguishes the tool's focus from the vault_* siblings by naming its unique scope of worker 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 conveys when to use the tool—when worker health/status is needed—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. The context is clear enough for a watchful agent, but the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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