list_edgeworkers

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

The description states 'list,' implying read-only behavior, and mentions the data included (names and group associations). However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly confirm safety or detail any side effects, though none are expected for a listing operation. The behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 concise—one sentence and two example questions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the examples are helpful but not overly verbose. This strikes a good balance for quick comprehension.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: listing all EdgeWorkers with names and group associations. The sibling list shows other list tools, but this one is distinct enough. No additional context is needed for a simple, stateless operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rules, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none are needed. No improvement necessary.

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 all EdgeWorkers with names and group associations,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (EdgeWorkers) along with included details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_edgeworker_file or list_edgeworker_versions, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides example questions like 'What EdgeWorkers are configured?' and 'Find the EdgeWorker for request routing,' which effectively indicate when to use this tool. While it lacks explicit exclusion of other tools or scenarios, the examples are clear for a simple listing tool.

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