list_authors

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. The phrase 'used by the library' is vague and does not explain scoping, pagination, or filtering behavior. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also does not disclose useful behavioral traits.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and object, making it efficient in length.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (10 optional parameters) and the existence of output schema, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not address key aspects like filtering by role, series, library, or the meaning of 'used by the library.' The description leaves major gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not. None of the parameters (role, series_id, library_id, etc.) are explained, and the description only mentions 'names and roles' without connecting them to the available filters.

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 action ('List') and the object ('author names and roles'). It conveys the tool's basic purpose without ambiguity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools list_author_names and list_author_roles, which could cause confusion about which tool to use.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_author_names or list_author_roles. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.

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