aiworkhub_dispatcher_health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with an explicit READ-ONLY label. It also adds useful behavioral context by listing the health signals returned, including pending callback count and last error, rather than merely restating the annotation.

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 with the READ-ONLY constraint front-loaded and the observable health signals listed immediately after. It contains no filler or redundant explanation.

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 input parameters, readOnlyHint=true, and an output schema present, the description provides everything needed for correct invocation: it is read-only, it reports dispatcher health, and it names the key status fields. No material calling context is missing.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not spend space explaining nonexistent parameters and instead focuses on what the health check reports.

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 identifies this as a read-only dispatcher health/status tool and enumerates the specific status signals it exposes: running/stopped state, coordinator target, repository identity, pending callbacks, and last delivery/error. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling dispatcher tools such as ensure_started, stop, or watchdog.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of a health/status tool and the READ-ONLY label, but the description does not explicitly say when to call this versus dispatcher_watchdog, dispatcher_ensure_started, or dispatcher_stop. An agent can infer it is for inspection rather than mutation, but the guidance is not explicit.

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