List crews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The only added context is that results are JSON items capped by limit, which is modest value against an already complete safety profile.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then sibling disambiguation, then a behavioral note. No filler or repetition.

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?

With a single optional parameter, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is close to complete. It omits pagination/offset behavior and result ordering, which an agent might want when limit is capped at 500, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1-500, default 100). The description's 'up to limit' adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Crew Mode crews from Studio') and immediately positions the tool against two siblings that could be confused with it. An agent can distinguish this from get_studio_entity and list_personas without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: get_studio_entity with entity=crews for a single crew, list_personas for members. That covers the two most likely confusions, but there is no guidance on when this is inappropriate (e.g. large enumerations vs list_studio_catalogue) or on result ordering.

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