Get Worker

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying exactly what attributes are retrieved, which is helpful for setting expectations. It does not add any additional behavioral caveats (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits), but the annotations cover the safety profile, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the relevant settings categories without any wasted words.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned. It could be slightly more explicit about what is not included (e.g., code or logs), but this is not necessary given the straightforward scope.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional param semantics beyond reinforcing that it applies to a Worker's settings, but since schema coverage is 100%, no compensation is needed.

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 what the tool does with a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact resources: Worker settings (bindings, compatibility date/flags, placement, observability), cron triggers, and workers.dev subdomain status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_worker_code or get_cron_triggers.

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need comprehensive settings for a worker. It clearly defines the scope, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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