list_spawned

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does state 'read-only' and 'No token required.' However, it does not cover edge cases such as the schema-described binding_token need for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection, and it says nothing about pagination, bounds, or output ordering.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the operation, scope, output fields, and auth note with no redundant text. The important behavioral qualifiers are front-loaded.

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 simple list tool the description covers the returned fields and session scope, but without an output schema or parameter semantics it leaves basic behavior unclear, such as what an empty call returns and whether workflow_id and spawn_states are filters or outputs.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain how workflow_id and spawn_states filter the listing, which means an agent cannot correctly infer what these optional inputs do.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope ('spawned workers in this session') and frames the tool as a read-only table rather than repeating the name. Listing the output columns (provider, spawn_state, depth, parentage, uptime) helps distinguish it from write/heartbeat tools.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: inspecting the read-only set of spawned workers in the current session. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it does not earn a 5.

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