list_recipients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return composition (members with id/name/roles, groups including 'Tous' plus one per role with member counts), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or that it is a non-destructive read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the verb and the scope. It is dense but readable, and nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned entities and their fields. For a zero-argument read tool this is nearly complete; only the absence of any safety/permission framing keeps it from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead describes the response content.

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?

Specific verb (Liste) plus resource (destinataires sélectionnables dans la messagerie) and it enumerates what the result contains: members and groups. It is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like send_message or add_signup, though it doesn't explicitly name its closest read siblings (get_users, list_messages).

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 messaging context hints at why you would call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_users or get_roles for the underlying data. The agent must infer the trigger.

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