worker_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description's 'This is read-only' simply restates that, earning no extra credit. It does add useful scope facts — the jobs listed are no-shell local ones drawn from the worker state directory — but says nothing about volume, ordering, or staleness of that state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope. The second sentence is largely redundant with the supplied readOnlyHint annotation but costs little.

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?

For a parameterless list tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what a job record contains or how many come back. The description could have named the identifying fields returned or noted that results are unfiltered and unpaginated.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the only unstated aspect is whether any implicit filtering applies, which the 'no-shell local' qualifier partially covers.

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: 'List' the no-shell local worker jobs from the issueops worker state directory. That scope ('no-shell', 'local') distinguishes it from the mutating worker siblings (worker_enqueue, worker_cancel), though it does not explicitly contrast with worker_status or worker_run_read_only.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus worker_status (likely single-job inspection) or state_list. The 'issueops worker state directory' phrasing implies context, but the agent must infer which sibling answers 'what jobs exist' versus 'what is job X doing'.

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