find-project-collaborators

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral nuance: explains search scope (all shared projects vs one project), notes partial case-insensitive matching, and importantly clarifies that an empty result doesn't mean the user doesn't exist in Todoist—just not a collaborator. This is valuable context for interpreting results.

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 compact—two sentences plus inline parameter explanations—and front-loads the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only lookup tool with 2 optional parameters, the description covers usage, scope, edge cases (empty result meaning), and matching behavior. An output schema exists, so return format is covered. Given tool complexity and rich annotations, this is 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 100%, so the input schema already fully describes both parameters (projectId, searchTerm) with the same details the description provides. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, hence baseline 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 tool finds Todoist users by name or email to look up their user ID, with concrete examples ('find Carrie's user ID', 'who is Ernesto'). It distinguishes from sibling find-tasks/find-projects by being specifically for people/collaborators.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this whenever the user asks to find, look up, or identify a person') and clarifies behavior with/without projectId. It doesn't mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose lookup tool.

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