List Luma guests

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and open-world, and the description adds a meaningful warning that guest data may include personal information. This goes beyond the structured annotations by giving the agent a data-handling constraint. No contradictory or missing behavioral disclosure is evident.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The privacy note is relevant and placed second, so it does not obscure the main purpose.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description communicates the core action but leaves return-format expectations unspecified, and it does not mention how approval_status filtering or pagination cursors behave. The annotations and schema carry some of this weight, so the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain approval_status, pagination_limit, or pagination_cursor. It only implies the event_id parameter via 'for an event.' The enumerated values and defaults are visible in the schema, but the free-text description contributes almost no semantic value for the filter and pagination parameters.

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 and resource — 'List guests for an event' — which clearly distinguishes the operation from single-guest retrieval (get_guest) and event listing (list_events). The event scope is stated up front, matching the required event_id parameter.

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 only usage guidance is a privacy constraint: 'use only for event operations requested by the user.' It does not state when to prefer this over siblings such as get_guest, update_guest_status, or add_guests, nor does it specify exclusions. Usage context must be inferred from the name and title.

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