List workers

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds substantial context beyond annotations: authorization gating, the 45-second staleness threshold, the -1 unmeasurable sentinel, diskLeasedMB semantics, the out-of-disk queue-drop behavior, and the meaning of `paused` including when it is null. This is exactly the operational detail the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the access gate, then the payload contents, then the return shape — a sensible order. It is a single dense run-on with many parentheticals, so it is heavier than ideal, but nearly every clause carries semantics an agent needs (sentinels, staleness, queue dropping).

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself and does: { items, live, stale } with the staleness definition spelled out. Combined with field-level semantics and the auth gate, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly spends no space on argument semantics.

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 (list) and a precisely scoped resource: every Reelsaw process that has checked in, enumerated as API, worker, combined app. The metric inventory (CPU, memory, disk, GPU, render slots, queues, jobs) makes it unmistakable against siblings like get_queue or get_instance_settings.

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?

Gives a clear access precondition up front ('Admins only' ... 'Hosted non-admins are refused'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not name an alternative sibling for non-admin monitoring or for queue-level vs fleet-level inspection, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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