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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral details beyond those: it returns a flat list with specific fields (nodeId, processId, role, invite status, capture count) and discloses the truncation behavior via 'truncated' flag, which is crucial for understanding result completeness. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by concise output details. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundant information.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format (flat list, key fields, truncation flag) and describes the scope (authorized linked process nodes). It covers behavioral edge cases (truncation) and is sufficiently complete for a read-only list tool with good annotation support.

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 50% (rootId has a description, orgId does not). The description adds some context by stating the tool operates on 'the organization's Process Landscape', implicitly clarifying orgId's purpose, but it doesn't explain parameter formats or behaviors beyond what the schema already provides. It adds marginal value over the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('people attached to every authorized linked process node') plus the scope ('in the organization's Process Landscape'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that deal with process structure or other aspects, such as getClarityProcessTree or listClarityProcesses.

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 clearly states what the tool does and the context (listing people across authorized linked process nodes, with optional subtree filtering via rootId). It provides clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would justify a 5.

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