list_event_invitees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List invitees' without disclosing pagination limits, filtering behavior, permissions, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. The description adds no safety or side-effect context beyond what the schema already implies.

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, direct sentence: 'List invitees for a specific event.' It is concise, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal context. It does not mention that the tool supports filtering, pagination, or default counts (though these are in the schema). It also fails to hint at use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptive text, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond pointing to 'a specific event,' which aligns with the required event_uuid parameter. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the description does not need to compensate further, earning a baseline score of 3.

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') and the resource ('invitees for a specific event'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_events (which lists events) and get_event (which retrieves a single event). The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 use when a user needs invitees for a particular event, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Sibling tools suggest distinct purposes (e.g., list_events for event lists), but the description does not address when this tool is preferred over others. Usage context is only implied.

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