keel_list_people

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the output field set, which is useful, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, pagination, ordering, rate limits, or failure behavior, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource, then lists the concrete output fields. Every part of the sentence contributes useful information, with no repetition or 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, listing the returned fields helps compensate for the missing output schema. Still, there is no mention of pagination limits, result ordering, or whether the list represents all personnel or only active ones, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional query parameter is already fully documented as a case-insensitive substring filter over name and email. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's action ('List') and resource ('workspace personnel directory'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. This makes its purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as keel_whoami, keel_list_vendors, and keel_list_webhooks.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only clue is the tool's name and the sibling list, which requires the agent to infer the right context on its own.

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