get_worker_set_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the result is large or paginated, or what an 'action' represents, leaving a real disclosure gap for even a simple read tool.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though this brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It is missing the routing information an agent needs to pick it over list_available_actions and any hint of what the returned actions look like.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Worker set ID'), so coverage is 100% and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as how to obtain a worker-set ID.

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 gives a clear verb (List) and resource (actions for a worker-set), so an agent understands the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling list_available_actions, leaving ambiguity about which action-listing tool applies to a worker-set versus globally.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_worker_set, list_available_actions, or list_worker_sets. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing is provided.

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