List Person Handles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral information. It states the return format (array of handles with kind, value, strength), which is helpful. However, it does not clarify if the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which is adequate but not thorough.

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 brief, consisting of a heading, a one-sentence definition, a usage line, and a returns line. It is front-loaded and to the point, with no unnecessary information, though it could benefit from better structure (e.g., separate sections).

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists and its purpose. It does not mention pagination or optional filtering, but for a 'list all' tool this is acceptable.

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% with a clear description for the sole parameter 'canonical_slug' as 'Canonical person page slug.' The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action: 'List all handles for a canonical person.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like link_person_alias or remove_person_alias which modify or delete handles.

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 provides explicit context: 'When to use: check known aliases for a person.' It gives a clear use case, though it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, which would elevate the score.

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