list_workers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists workers visible on the active page and mentions a version-specific feature, but it does not discuss side effects, permissions, performance implications, or what happens when no workers exist.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a brief version note—with no extraneous words. Every piece of information 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 tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing function, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, specifies the scope (active page), and notes a version-dependent behavior.

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 and 100% descriptive coverage, meaning the schema itself is empty. Per rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description adds no additional parameter information since none exist.

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 action (list), the resource (workers), and specifies the types (dedicated, shared, service). It also contrasts with sibling list_* tools by focusing specifically on workers and adding version-specific detail (M3 RDP adds offline detection).

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 implies usage (when you need to see workers on the active page) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling list tools like list_frames or list_scripts, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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