List active Kanban workers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the detail of 'writing redacted receipts,' which is useful side-effect context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe output shape, pagination, or whether heartbeat data indicates liveness vs. staleness. Adds some value over annotations but not rich context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. The phrase 'Typed GET /api/plugins/kanban/workers/active wrapper' is slightly redundant with the name, but the rest (what it returns and the redacted-receipt side effect) earns its place. Marginally verbose but compact.

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 has 0 params, an output schema, and read-only annotations, so the description's main obligations are covered. The redacted-receipt side effect and the fields returned are stated. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is reasonably complete. Could add when staleness/heartbeat interpretation matters, but that's a minor 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?

The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has nothing to document here. With zero parameters and an output schema present, the baseline of 4 is appropriate — there are genuinely no params to explain and the description correctly doesn't invent any.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('lists currently spawned Kanban workers') with clear scope metadata (PID, profile, task id, heartbeat). It clearly distinguishes this from the broader hermes_kanban_* tools in the sibling list, particularly from run/dashboard tools. Minor deduction: 'Typed GET... wrapper' jargon adds little value for the agent.

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 this is the read-only inspection tool for live workers, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use hermes_kanban_orchestration_get or hermes_kanban_run_get instead). Given the large sibling set, some when-not guidance would help, but the read-only nature is reasonably inferable.

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