Inspect an external worker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the read is repeatable, and it returns partial state while running plus a result or normalized error once finished. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., unknown/expired workerId) or retention 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?

Two tight sentences with the returned payload front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information about what comes back.

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 does the work of summarizing return contents (state, timestamps, result/error), which is the key need for a simple two-parameter inspection tool. Gaps remain around the workerId source and transcript handling, but overall it is adequate for this complexity.

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?

workerId has no description in the schema, and the description never explains where the ID comes from or its meaning. includeTranscript is only documented in the schema, and the description says nothing about transcript retrieval, so the 50% schema coverage gap is not compensated.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('worker') and an explicit enumeration of what is returned: current state, timestamps, and result or normalized error. It is distinguishable from siblings like meah_list_agents or meah_run_agent, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Results can be read repeatedly' implies a polling/retrieval use after a run, which is a useful hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative (meah_list_agents, meah_cancel_agent), and no prerequisite such as needing a workerId from a prior run/delegate call.

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