list_worker_builds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List Worker builds for an account' and does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or that the operation is read-only, all of which would matter to an agent calling this tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It leads with the action verb and states the resource and scope directly, which is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter list tool.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important context unexplained: what a Worker build is, what the response contains, and how this differs from list_worker_deployments or get_worker_build. An agent could call it, but not with full confidence about the result or the reason to prefer it over similar tools.

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 single account_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The phrase 'for an account' lightly reinforces the parameter's role, but the description adds no details about ID format, required scope, or how to obtain the account ID. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Worker builds') scoped to an account, so an agent can tell it apart from most siblings like list_zones or list_dns_records. However, it does not explicitly distinguish 'builds' from related Worker siblings like list_worker_deployments or get_worker_build, leaving some potential ambiguity about what a build is.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative Worker-related tools such as list_worker_services, list_worker_deployments, or get_worker_build. The description implies the obvious case (need a list of builds) but provides no exclusions, conditions, or alternative routing.

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