publish_worker_runtime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful behavior: the snapshot is host-observed, not self-reported, and should be refreshed on availability changes. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether this is an upsert, whether prior snapshots are replaced, or what authorization/state implications 'through the router capability' entails.

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 brief and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and object, and the following sentences add essential nuance without fluff. Every sentence contributes meaningful context.

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?

Despite the output schema existing, the tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description gives a good high-level scenario but leaves crucial invocation details uncovered, such as what router_actor_id and router_token represent, what 'through the router capability' implies, and the effect of the active flag.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only maps a few concepts loosely: model identity, runtime mode, capabilities, and cost align with model_id, runtime_mode, capabilities, and cost_class. Required parameters like worker_key and router_actor_id, plus active, owner_gated, router_token, max_parallel_tasks, and metadata, remain semantically unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Publish a host-observed worker runtime snapshot') and adds a key clarifying distinction: it is not a worker self-report. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond that contrast.

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 description provides clear usage context: hosts should publish/refresh the snapshot when provider/tool availability changes, such as degraded/reserve mode. It also gives a clear when-not ('This is not a worker self-report'), but it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly describe when another tool should be used instead.

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