workbench_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Read durable local jobs; no browser calls' conveys that this is a read-only, non-browser operation, which is helpful. It does not mention result shape, ordering, pagination, or error behavior, so transparency is adequate but limited.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with two clear clauses. Every word contributes either to the resource being read or to the key exclusion of browser calls, with no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the main behavioral constraint. It could say more about what the returned data contains, but 'Read durable local jobs' is enough to guide invocation correctly in most cases.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what the empty input schema already shows, and no parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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 'Read' with a clear resource, 'durable local jobs,' and adds the distinguishing trait 'no browser calls.' This separates it from browser-related siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from reading/status tools like workbench_get or workbench_status.

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?

'No browser calls' implies this is the non-browser route for reading local jobs, which is useful context. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to prefer this over workbench_get, workbench_status, or workbench_watches, leaving usage mostly implied.

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