worker_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by guaranteeing secrets are never returned and by scoping what is read (configured vs. discovered). It does not, however, explain whether reading triggers a live discovery or what the refresh flag changes behaviorally.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource list is front-loaded and the security guarantee is placed last for emphasis. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description does describe the returned content (providers, models, reasoning controls) and excludes secrets, which is helpful. But the unexplained 'refresh' parameter and the absence of any note on caching/discovery freshness leave a meaningful hole for a catalog tool.

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 'refresh' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and is not mentioned at all in the description. For a tool whose sibling provider_refresh implies a re-discovery concept, leaving the only parameter's semantics undocumented is a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) plus three concrete resources: configured providers, discovered models, and per-model reasoning controls. Compared with mutation siblings like provider_save, provider_delete, and provider_refresh, an agent can tell this is the read-only catalog accessor without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'Read' framing and the presence of write/discovery siblings (provider_save, provider_probe, provider_refresh), but the description never says when to choose this over provider_probe or provider_refresh, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the boundary.

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