Get Worker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation is safe, read-only, and never requires approval, covering side effects and authorization. It does not mention not-found or error behavior, but the output schema can document the return shape, and for a simple lookup this is reasonably transparent.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the core action, then appends the safety guarantee. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the name or schema.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, an output schema, and no annotations), the description is mostly complete for correct invocation. It covers the operation, scope, and safety profile. It could be slightly more complete with an explicit alternative reference or not-found behavior, but these are minor for a basic read-only lookup.

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 does clarify that worker_id is the identifier used in the lookup, but it adds minimal detail beyond the parameter name and type. Since there is only one parameter and its meaning is easily inferred, this is adequate but not rich.

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 states a specific action ('Look up'), a specific resource ('a single worker'), and a precise scope ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_workers (plural/search), terminate_worker, delete_worker, and update_worker.

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 usage when the agent has a worker_id and needs a single record, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_workers for queries without an id. The safety context ('read-only', 'never requires approval') provides some guidance but no when-not-to-use or alternative tool routing.

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