jobd_workers

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

With no annotations, the description handles transparency itself by labeling it a 'snapshot' (read-only point-in-time view) and naming all returned categories. It doesn't cover auth, staleness, or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter fleet status read the essential behavior is disclosed.

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 first sentence front-loads 'Fleet snapshot' and then packs the output contract into compact parenthetical lists; the second sentence adds concrete usage guidance. Every clause earns its place and there is no 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the output fields, their possible values, and the health rollup states, and it supplies two relevant use cases. For a parameterless read-only fleet query, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The description's field list primarily documents return content rather than inputs, which fits the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 'Fleet snapshot' and enumerates exactly what it returns: worker state, capacity fields, capability tags, slot usage, heartbeat, and health rollup. This makes the tool's resource and output clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like jobd_status or jobd_list.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: use before submitting GPU work to check available capacity, or to diagnose why jobs aren't dispatched. It doesn't spell out when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is strong.

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