workers_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions that the root account appears as 'the shared USD wallet once', adding some output behavior insight. However, it does not state that this tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the key has no access.

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 very short with only two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action ('List workers this key can access') and then adds supporting context efficiently. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly clearer with punctuation.

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 that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists to describe the return values, the description covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool lists and a hint about output structure. The mention of 'Root account is the shared USD wallet once' adds helpful domain context beyond what the schema would provide.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any param details. The context signals indicate 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no param information because none exists.

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 it lists workers accessible to the current key. The phrase 'Each row has group tt/usd/stars' adds specific context about what information is included, which differentiates it from a generic list. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from all sibling tools beyond one named alternative.

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 clear context on when to use this tool vs workers_balance, stating 'For one group use workers_balance'. This is helpful for an agent choosing between similar tools. However, no exclusions or conditions are given beyond that one comparison.

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