Get a worker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: instructions are cut at 1500 characters in concise mode, and 'detailed' surfaces the additional fields (tools, flags, scope, times). It does not mention permission requirements or error behavior for an unknown id, but for a read tool the added truncation caveat is the important disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned field set, with the mode distinction in the second sentence. The second sentence is a dense comma list, but each element (truncation limit, detailed-only fields) carries information an agent would otherwise have to probe for.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description need only cover the non-obvious behavior, and it does: the concise truncation limit and which fields require detailed mode. Nothing about calling it correctly is missing, though a note on what happens for a missing or malformed id would close the last gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by quantifying the concise-mode truncation at 1500 characters, which the schema only calls 'shortened instructions'. It does not restate the 24-hex-id format, correctly leaving that to the schema.

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 and resource ('Fetches one worker by id') and enumerates the primary fields returned, which makes it distinguishable from heliyos_workers_list and the update/delete siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the routing signal is implicit rather than explicit.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a worker_id and needs that worker's full definition. There is no statement of when to prefer it over heliyos_workers_list (e.g. 'use list to discover ids first') or any preconditions.

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