list_workers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose some non-obvious traits: that usage counters are measured worker counters and exclude coordinator/browser totals, and that historical success does not guarantee current login/quota. However, it omits permissions, cost, and any hint about the response shape beyond the compact/full split.

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 text is short and front-loads the purpose, but it is written as disconnected fragments and semicolon-joined clauses rather than complete sentences, which costs clarity for no real gain in brevity. Every clause carries information, so nothing is padding, but the structure is cryptic.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the output mode split, the usage counter scope, and a freshness caveat, which is more than nothing. It still leaves the meaning of 'since', the definition of a worker, and the full return structure for the agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: include_usage is explained (measured worker counters, excludes coordinator/browser totals), detail=full is linked to full paths/config, and 'since ISO timestamp scopes them' gestures at the since parameter. Still, the since semantics are only obliquely implied and the compact enum value is never defined.

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 fragment 'Compact worker/model availability' identifies the resource (workers/models and their availability) but supplies no explicit verb and never says it lists them, so the agent must infer 'list'. It is distinguishable from siblings like submit_task or recommend_route by resource, but the phrasing is telegraphic rather than a clear statement of purpose.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as recommend_route, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only conditional language ('Full paths/config only when detail=full') governs a parameter, not the decision to use the tool.

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