cf_workers_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List Workers scripts' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all scripts, paginated results, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise ('List Workers scripts') - just three words that directly convey the core functionality. There's zero wasted language, and it's perfectly front-loaded. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter tool, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'Workers scripts' are, what format the listing returns, or any behavioral aspects. While the tool is simple, the description should provide more context for proper agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (accountId) with its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Workers scripts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like cf_worker_delete (deletion) and cf_kv_keys (different resource type). However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all scripts vs filtered) which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be preferred over other listing tools (like cf_dns_list or cf_kv_namespaces), or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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