worker_glob

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the authorization scope ('worker's authorized workdir parent tree'), but omits pattern-matching semantics, traversal rules, error behavior, hidden-file handling, and return shape.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing detail elsewhere.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin. An agent lacks the parameter semantics and behavioral context needed to call this tool confidently in edge cases.

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 0%, so the schema does not document either required parameter. The description implies 'workdir' is scoped to an authorized parent tree and that 'pattern' is a glob pattern, but it does not define syntax, path resolution, format, or constraints for either parameter.

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 ('Glob') and resource ('files'), plus a scope constraint ('within worker's authorized workdir parent tree'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic file-read or list tools, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like worker_list_dir or worker_grep.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and sibling names whether to use this instead of worker_list_dir, worker_grep, or list_dir.

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