get_readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses return content (status enum and pipeline health) but does not mention side effects, permissions, latency, or whether pipeline health checks might be expensive. This is minimal for a read operation but lacks 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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and the possible readiness values. There is no wasted wording, though it is underspecified in other dimensions.

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 or annotations, the description is responsible for explaining return values and usage context. It partially covers return values by listing readiness states and pipeline health, but leaves pipeline health vague and parameter semantics completely unaddressed. It is a minimal and incomplete description for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention request_id or idempotency_key. Since the schema provides no descriptions and the description does not compensate, the meaning and purpose of both parameters are entirely unexplained.

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 the tool reports daemon readiness status with enumerated states (starting|migrating|warming_up|ready) and pipeline health. It distinguishes from the sibling tool ping by offering more granular readiness states, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ping or other health/status checks. It implies a readiness check but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool comparisons.

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