arsenkin_local_diagnosticsDiagnose stuck local workers by checking heartbeat, queue status, and budget when jobs remain queued. Free, no provider call.
Explain local worker heartbeat, your queue and budget. Use when jobs stay queued. Cost: free, no provider call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: it is free and makes no provider call, which is exactly the kind of cost/latency trait an agent needs when deciding to run diagnostics.
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?
Three short sentences covering what, when, and cost, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is telegraphic ("Explain local worker heartbeat") but nothing is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters the schema burden is nil. What/when/cost are all present; the only gap is how this diagnostics call relates to the other status- and limit-reporting siblings.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level detail is required or missing.
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?
Names a specific verb ("Explain") and concrete resources (local worker heartbeat, queue, budget), so an agent knows it returns diagnostic state rather than raw status. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as arsenkin_status, arsenkin_task_status, or arsenkin_limits.
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?
"Use when jobs stay queued" gives a clear, actionable trigger condition. There is no guidance on when-not to use it or which sibling to prefer when the problem is budget- or status-related, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.