yaaif_desktop_tool_package_worker_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source ('from control-plane tool_install and tool_remove runs'), which gives insight into what state is shown. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects), nor does it mention pagination or filtering behavior. For a status query, this is a moderate gap but not severe.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a usage tip. It is concise, contains no fluff, and every word adds value. The structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain the return structure or at least the nature of the status information, but it only says 'Show install/upgrade/remove state'. Additionally, the filtering parameters (worker_id, worker_ids, limit) are not explained, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use them. This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters.

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 only 25% (only package_id has a description). The description mentions 'a Package Registry tool' but does not explain the meaning of limit, worker_id, or worker_ids. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it fails to clarify these parameters. The agent must infer their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific action: 'Show install/upgrade/remove state of a Package Registry tool on desktop workers'. This clearly identifies the resource (Package Registry tool) and the scope (desktop workers). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from sibling tools like yaaif_desktop_tool_package_get (which likely returns package metadata) by focusing on installation state. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use before install or uninstall.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, which is valuable. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the given guidance is clear and actionable.

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