workers_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'No bot tokens' adds a useful constraint, and 'Read' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose what the worker card contains, whether it can fail, or what the output structure is, though an output schema exists.

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?

Extremely concise two-sentence description with no wasted words. The main purpose and a key usage hint are front-loaded. The 'no bot tokens' clarification is valuable context packed efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description is mostly complete. However, the output schema is not shown and the description does not explain what 'worker card' data is returned, which could be ambiguous. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not exceptionally complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter (group_id) with no description. The tool description does not explain the meaning of group_id or its relationship to the worker card, so the agent must infer from the name. This is a notable gap since the schema provides no semantic help.

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?

Describes the tool as reading a worker card and explicitly notes it does not require bot tokens, distinguishing it from other worker-related tools. Slightly less clear than naming the exact resource 'worker card' but does convey the primary function and a key distinction from siblings like workers_balance.

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?

Provides a clear usage hint: 'For money prefer workers_balance.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and points to an alternative, which is helpful. However, it does not fully explain when to use workers_get vs other worker-related read tools or when reading a card is appropriate.

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