list_active_participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent and adds the context that it lists 'currently-connected' participants and provides parameter examples. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover, earning a mid-range score.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a clean list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure front-loads the core action. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing need for return value explanation) and annotations covering safety, the description omits context about default behaviors (e.g., what happens without filters, how pagination exactly works, rate limits). For a tool with 7 parameters and many siblings, these gaps reduce completeness.

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%, so the description carries full burden. It lists all 7 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'restrict to one running conference instance', filter options for role, protocol, is_muted, and pagination controls). This adds significant value, though it lacks details like value ranges or interaction between 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 clearly states the tool lists currently-connected participants (active call legs), which is a specific verb+resource. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_active_participant' (singular vs list) and 'list_active_conferences' (participants vs conferences), it does not explicitly differentiate itself, which would be helpful given many similar siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_active_participant' (for a single participant) or other listing tools. It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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