worker_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral context: the tool surfaces staleness and feature counts, and explains why this matters. However, it does not specify staleness thresholds, output format, ordering, or side-effect status, though 'list' implies a read-only operation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The essential output contents are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful rationale for the tool's existence. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description communicates the key return values and the conceptual need for the tool. It is slightly light on staleness interpretation details, but the information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The only parameter, cwd, has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but none is needed because the schema already documents its purpose and default behavior.

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 clearly identifies the resource (workers) and the information returned (staleness, time since last heartbeat, feature count). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'show', which keeps it from a 5, but the meaning is unambiguous and it is distinct from sibling worker_heartbeat by describing read-only status reporting.

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 line 'An idle worker and a working one look identical without this' implies a use case: checking worker liveness/status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use worker_list versus alternatives such as worker_heartbeat, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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