list_worker_tails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It reasonably conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and adds the 'active' qualifier, but it does not disclose permissions, pagination behavior, session variety, or whether sessions are ephemeral.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It names the operation, the resource type, and the scope, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 operation, it covers the essential information: what is listed and for which script. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the return shape and any invocation constraints are left unspecified, requiring the agent to infer them.

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%: both required parameters (account_id and script_name) are already described in the input schema. The description only restates the Worker-script scope and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('active tail log sessions'), and the scope ('for a Worker script'). This is immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling worker tools like list_worker_secrets, list_worker_deployments, and get_worker_script.

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 usage context is implied: use it when you need active Worker tail sessions. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related worker list tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing information.

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