list_workers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and 'in an account' establishes scope, but the description does not mention response shape, pagination, or authentication requirements. For a simple account-level list tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single, six-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and is appropriately sized for a tool with one required parameter and a fully documented input schema.

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 simple account-scoped list operation with one required parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, there is no output schema, no mention of return shape or pagination, and the large sibling list contains similar resources like list_worker_services, so the guidance is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 100%, and the single parameter account_id is already fully described as 'The account ID'. The description's 'in an account' weakly reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('Worker scripts') scoped to an account. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_worker_script or list_worker_routes by the resource type, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 prefer this tool over list_worker_services, list_worker_routes, or get_worker_script. The description only states what the tool does; it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites, pagination, or filtering behavior.

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