find-project-collaborators

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

The description discloses the search scope (all shared projects or a specific project), includes the authenticated user in the search, explains that empty results don't necessarily mean the person doesn't exist in Todoist, and notes partial case-insensitive matching. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage trigger, scope semantics, and matching behavior. It is logically structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly condensed without losing information.

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?

The tool has optional parameters and scoping nuances; the description covers all critical aspects: what it searches, when to use it, edge cases, and matching behavior. The output schema handles return values, and annotations cover safety, so the description is complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces how projectId changes the search scope and adds the nuance about empty results (not a collaborator vs. not existing), which goes beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 (collaborators/teammates) by name or email to look up their user ID, with explicit examples ('find Carrie's user ID', 'who is Ernesto'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find-projects and find-tasks by focusing specifically on people.

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever the user asks to find, look up, or identify a person' and provides examples. It also explains the behavioral difference when projectId is omitted versus provided, and clarifies the meaning of empty results, giving the agent clear decision-making guidance.

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