list_workers

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as return format, required permissions (e.g., whether the user must have access to the site or server), or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 (7 words) and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. While it could include more detail, it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a queue worker is, how the list is structured (e.g., a list of worker names or full objects), or the relationship between siteId and serverId. This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions in the schema are generic ('The ID of the site' and 'The ID of the server'), and the tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about how these parameters relate to each other or to the listing operation.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'queue workers for a site', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_daemons or list_databases, which have similarly minimal descriptions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is a create_worker and delete_worker sibling, but the description does not mention prerequisites or appropriate contexts for listing workers.

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