list_workers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that workers listed are 'installed and healthy' and includes capabilities, which gives insight into the tool's behavior. It does not mention side effects or performance characteristics, but for a read-only list tool, this is adequate.

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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and adds a usage hint in the second sentence.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains that the tool returns workers 'with their capabilities', but does not detail the structure of the output. For a simple list tool, this is mostly adequate, but a more complete description could specify the output format.

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 input schema has zero parameters. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the 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 clearly states the tool lists available coding workers with their capabilities, using a specific verb 'list' and resource 'coding workers'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like worker_delegate by specifying it is meant for checking which workers are available.

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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Call this to see which worker values worker_delegate can use before delegating.' This provides clear context and implies a workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives beyond the implied sibling.

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