aiworkhub_dispatcher_watchdog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that the operation is mutating ('auto-recover', 're-ensures it in place'), defines the exact unhealthy states handled, and notes the downstream effect that durable-outbox callbacks replay after recovery. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral or scoping detail without repetition. The length is appropriate for the recovery logic being described.

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?

The tool takes no arguments and has an output schema, so the description only needs to explain the conditions, side effects, and intended caller context, all of which it does. No invocation-critical information 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 parameters, so the schema already covers the invocation contract completely and the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for a zero-param tool is 4.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Detect and auto-recover') and resource ('down-but-expected callback dispatcher'). The remainder distinguishes this from a general dispatcher ensure/start operation by naming the exact expected-but-unhealthy states it acts on.

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?

It states the intended context ('VS Code extension's periodic refresh') and the conditions that trigger recovery versus the cases left untouched (healthy dispatcher, manager-inbox session, dispatch not expected). It does not name sibling alternatives such as aiworkhub_dispatcher_ensure_started or aiworkhub_dispatcher_health.

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