jobd_workers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a read-only snapshot with state, capacity, and health rollup, implying no side effects. It could mention data freshness or limitations, but the description is otherwise transparent about the output.

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, information-dense sentence with clear front-loading of the core purpose. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It is complete and actionable for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds immense value by detailing the output fields and structure, effectively compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 explicitly states 'Fleet snapshot: every registered worker...' and ends with 'Use before submitting GPU work to see what's free, or to diagnose why a job isn't being dispatched.' This gives a specific verb+resource and clear differentiation from sibling tools like jobd_submit 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use before submitting GPU work... or to diagnose why a job isn't being dispatched.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable for the primary use case.

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