List authors

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces these with 'Read only. Nothing is changed.' It also adds the auth requirement ('Needs a key carrying the authors:read scope'), which is beyond the annotations. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action 'List authors', followed by brief context. Every clause contributes value—scope, side-effect safety, and auth requirement—without redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers essential context: what it lists, that it is read-only, and the required auth scope. The schema documents parameters comprehensively. It does not explain the return shape, but that is less critical given the tool name and the absence of an output schema.

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 covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and there is no extra value from the description beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('authors'), and adds the contextual phrase 'byline roster for the Site' which clarifies the scope. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_author or list_articles.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing all authors in the site's byline roster) and notes the required auth scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for a simple read-only list operation.

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