List Worker Scripts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read operation,' which merely repeats the readOnly annotation and provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination, result limits, authentication requirements, or whether the listing spans accounts. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes almost nothing beyond them.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, but the second sentence 'Read operation' is redundant with the readOnly annotation and does not earn its place. The overall brevity is appropriate for a simple list operation, yet it omits more useful context that could have been included instead.

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 list tool with three optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the returned list contains, how pagination works, or how the optional filters affect results. While the annotations cover read safety, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 67%, with 'tags' and 'account' documented in the schema but 'account_id' left without a description. The tool description provides no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the partially documented schema or clarify the empty account_id description. It adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource ('Fetch a list of uploaded Worker scripts'), which is clearer than a pure tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many other list_* siblings (e.g., list_zones, list_dns_records) beyond the resource name already present in the tool name. The scope of what a 'Worker script' includes and whether it is account-scoped or zone-scoped is left implicit.

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 alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what filters or account context are appropriate. The description simply states the operation without any usage framing.

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