GET /events/:eventID/schedule/:sessionID/attendees — List session attendees (people who bookmarked it)
Returns the list of attendees who have bookmarked a specific session into their agenda. Same profile shape as /events/:eventID/attendees.
Access: any active DCer who can see the event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventID | Yes | Event ID | |
| sessionID | Yes | Session ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return shape (same as event attendees), access requirement, and nature of the list (bookmarked attendees). It lacks details on pagination or error handling, but for a simple read operation, it provides adequate transparency.
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, front-loads the purpose with the endpoint path, and includes only essential information (shape reference, access condition). No redundant sentences.
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?
The description covers purpose, access, and return shape reference. Given no output schema and simple required parameters, it is mostly complete. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or list limits, but expected list size for bookmarked attendees is typically small.
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 100% (both 'eventID' and 'sessionID' have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('List'), resource ('session attendees'), and condition ('people who bookmarked it'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'event_attendees' and 'event_meetup_attendees' by specifying the bookmarking criterion.
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 context (listing bookmarked attendees) and includes an access note ('any active DCer who can see the event'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'event_attendees' or provide conditions for avoidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.
85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.
The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.
