list_external_workers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation is a 'list' (implying read-only) and 'system-level', but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, describe side effects, or clarify authorization needs. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination detail is included efficiently.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should convey what is returned (e.g., an array of workers, total count, pagination metadata). It does not. It also lacks details about ordering, filtering, or behavior when no workers exist. The tool's completeness for an agent is insufficient.

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% (both limit and offset are documented in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 the action 'List external workers' with the specific resource (external workers) and mentions pagination. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_external_worker, get_external_worker, update_external_worker, and delete_external_worker.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_external_worker for a single worker) or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions for a 'system-level operation'). No exclusions or special context are mentioned.

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