workbench_status

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

The description includes '[READ ONLY]' which discloses the non-mutating behavior, and 'batch-runner configuration' clarifies the scope. However, annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden; it doesn't disclose what the report contains, whether it reflects live state, or any side effects. The '[READ ONLY]' tag adds some transparency but not deep 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. '[READ ONLY]' is placed at the start, immediately signaling safety, and the rest states the exact resource being reported. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could benefit from a hint about what 'batch-runner configuration' includes (e.g., paths, versions, settings), but the output schema likely covers return values, and the tool's simplicity lowers the bar.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage with an empty properties object), and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 description states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('Workbench batch-runner configuration'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the '[READ ONLY]' prefix and the specific 'batch-runner configuration' scope help differentiate it from other status tools like mechanical_status.

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 implies this is a read-only status check, and the '[READ ONLY]' prefix signals safe usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mechanical_status or get_solution_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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