list_private_workers

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 authentication requirement and parameter meanings, but it does not mention side effects, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the cursor, or the nature of the operation (read-only). The output schema exists, but behavioral traits beyond parameters are absent.

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, with just three lines of explanatory text plus parameter bullets. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first line states the action and endpoint, the second line specifies authentication, and the bullet list defines parameters. No redundant information.

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 that the tool has only three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the input side well with parameter details and authentication. It does not describe the output format, but the output schema exists. For a simple list operation, this is sufficiently complete, though a note about idempotency or safety would improve it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful details for all three parameters: status options (all, in_use, idle), limit range (1-100), and next_page_token as a pagination cursor. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 'List self-hosted pool workers' and includes the HTTP endpoint, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_private_worker' or 'list_pending_pool_requests', which could cause confusion.

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 mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires the pool's service account API key'), which is helpful. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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