list_request_participants

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that participants receive notifications and explains pagination behavior (start, limit). However, it lacks details about permissions, rate limits, or any non-obvious side effects.

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 structured with a clear heading and Arg section. The first sentence directly states the purpose. The optional note about notifications adds minor context but could be removed for conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema (assumed to document return values), the description adequately covers behavior and parameters. It explains pagination and the resource being listed, making it complete for a simple list tool.

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 0%, but the description clearly explains each parameter: issue_id_or_key with an example, start as pagination offset, and limit as max results with default. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 tool lists users who participate in a customer request. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'request participants', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_request_participants and remove_request_participants.

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 for viewing participants of a request and mentions they receive notifications, but does not explicitly state when to use this over other participant-related tools or provide any exclusion criteria.

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