List People

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It helpfully states the default page_size=200 and lists return fields, but omits other behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior when the team exceeds 200 members.

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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields before the usage guidance. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and notes the default page size. The only gap is that pagination behavior for large result sets is not addressed, but this is minor given the schema and absence of complex behavior.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the page_size default and does not add syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all team members in Productive.io') and immediately clarifies scope with the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from the single-record sibling productive_get_person by the word 'List' and 'all'.

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 a concrete use case: finding person IDs for task assignment or time logging. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., use productive_get_person when you already have an ID), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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