List Workspace workers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: 'oldest first, one page at a time' ordering/pagination semantics and the explicit reassurance 'No run starts and nothing changes', which matters because a 'workers' listing could otherwise be mistaken for triggering execution. It stops short of describing page size defaults or termination conditions, which live in the schema.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded, followed by scope and safety notes; nothing is padded. The trailing enumeration of returned fields is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it does not bloat the text.

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?

With an output schema present, a fully covered input schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only needs to supply ordering, pagination, scope and non-mutation guarantees — and it supplies all four. An agent has everything required to call this correctly.

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 limit, cursor, workspace_id and task_group_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates task_group_id's filtering role and the pagination model, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the workers started in a Workspace') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly name the singular sibling get_workspace_worker or explain how it differs from list_runs, leaving differentiation to inference from the name.

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 one scoping hint ('task_group_id limits the list to one task group') and describes the page-by-page pattern, which implies when to use it. It never states when to prefer this over get_workspace_worker for a single worker or list_runs for runs, so usage is only implied.

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