List Workers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('workers that reply to broadcast'), which hints that unreachable workers may be omitted, but it never states that this is a live broadcast whose results are timing-dependent or that non-responding workers are silently dropped.

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 tightly packed sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope before the field list. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one remaining gap is the live-broadcast/timing behavior of the inspection, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 timeout parameter and its CELERY_INSPECT_TIMEOUT default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 workers') plus a scope qualifier ('that reply to broadcast') and enumerates the returned fields (pool, concurrency, uptime, queues consumed). An agent can distinguish this from the queue_depths sibling without opening either schema.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus queue_depths or any other inspection tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the name and the field list.

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