Worker Status

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds material behavioral context: reachability is probed, not inferred; configuration and reachability are reported separately; and dollar-budget fields were removed as misleading. This tells an agent not to treat 'configured' as 'answering' and explains why no budget gauge appears. No contradiction 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 opening sentence is crisp and front-loaded. However, most of the text is a historical rationale about HIVE-384 and the old dollar budget; it supports understanding but is longer than needed for a one-parameter status tool.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it states what is shown, clarifies the key semantic guarantee of probed reachability, and the schema covers parameter details and return shape. An agent has what it needs to invoke correctly.

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 single parameter include_models is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), including its default and effect of avoiding a network call when false. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('worker health') and enumerates the four aspects reported: configuration, reachability, model, and usage. The 'worker' framing clearly separates it from the vault_* siblings, including vault_health, so there is no ambiguity about what it targets.

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 makes the intended use context clear — checking worker health/status — but never states when to prefer this tool over an alternative or when not to use it. There is no explicit exclusion or sibling routing, and 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.