admin_get_worker_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on any side effects, data scope, or permission nuances beyond the access restriction. It is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.

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 sentence with no redundant language. It conveys the essential purpose and access restriction efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 that this is a simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could potentially mention what kind of stats are included (e.g., latency, queue size), but the absence of such detail is not a major gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 takes no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Celery worker statistics'), which distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like admin_get_engine_stats and admin_get_queue_stats. The verb and noun are specific and unambiguous.

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 only usage guidance is 'White team only,' which is an access restriction rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus others. No mention of contexts for use or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent without clear direction on when to select this tool.

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