monitor_and_recover_workers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that recovery is executed without detailing side effects, permissions, or whether recovery is destructive. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical details that would require more text. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 the tool performs monitoring and recovery, the description should explain what triggers recovery, the implications of recovery, and what the output schema contains. The current description is too vague for an agent to use 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%, meaning the schema offers no explanation for the single parameter (caller_agent_id). The tool description does not explain this parameter, leaving its purpose and allowed values completely undocumented.

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 specifies monitoring and recovery of workers, which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like healthcheck_agent or attempt_recovery by combining both actions into one, though it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., all workers or specific ones).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like healthcheck_agent, attempt_recovery, or full_recovery. The agent lacks context to decide whether this combined tool is appropriate instead of individual steps.

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