jobd_workers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output fields (state, capacity, tags, slot usage, heartbeat, health rollup) and implies a read-only operation. Lacks details on authorization or rate limits, but the tool is simple (no params) and the description sufficiently informs behavior.

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?

Description is a single sentence with a well-organized list of fields followed by usage guidance. It is front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose but clear and efficient for the complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values listing important fields and the health rollup. It covers all critical aspects for a read-only snapshot tool, and no missing information is evident.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage trivially). Description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output.

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 states it provides a 'fleet snapshot' of workers with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning use cases like 'before submitting GPU work' and 'diagnose why a job isn't being dispatched', which are unique to this read-only reporting tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before submitting GPU work to see what's free, or to diagnose why a job isn't being dispatched.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't list when-not-to-use, but the context with sibling names implies alternatives for other actions.

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