list_workers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the output is normalized and excludes credential profiles, and 'List' implies a read operation. It does not mention any potential side effects or access requirements, but for a simple listing tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 a single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the core action and resource while adding the key qualifier ('without credential profiles'). No words are wasted.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and a key behavioral boundary, and the output schema covers return values. More explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools would improve completeness.

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, and the schema reflects this with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters.

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 specifies a clear verb ('List'), a clear resource ('worker capabilities'), and a scope qualifier ('normalized', 'without credential profiles'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, all of which concern jobs, artifacts, quotas, or results rather than workers.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need normalized worker capabilities and do not need credential profiles. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or provide exclusion criteria relative to the sibling tools.

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