get_external_worker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and a system-level nature, but fails to mention key behaviors: what happens if the ID does not exist, whether it is idempotent, if any permissions are required, or what the response format contains. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every word serves a purpose: establishing the action, resource, scope, and context. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at least clarify what 'details' are returned or behavior on missing IDs. It does not. Sibling tools like get_user likely have richer descriptions, making this one feel incomplete for an agent to gauge sufficiency.

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% for the single parameter, which already describes 'worker_id' as 'External worker ID'. The description adds the phrase 'by ID', which reinforces that the parameter is an ID but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get external worker details by ID', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It identifies the exact operation (get) and resource (external worker), with the scope defined by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_external_workers, create_external_worker, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'System-level operation' hints at intended use but does not state scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling list_external_workers exists but the description does not contrast with it.

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