Get A List Of Possible Assignees For An RFI

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds pagination details and metadata, but the claim of returning 'RFI records' instead of assignees is a factual error. It does not clarify that the response is a list of users (potential assignees) rather than RFI records, reducing transparency.

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 relatively short, but contains contradictory and irrelevant sentences. The mention of 'full details of a specific RFI records' is unnecessary and confusing. While concise, it fails to be clear and focused, which is more important than brevity.

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 simple tool with three parameters and helpful annotations, the description is incomplete. It incorrectly describes the return type (RFI records vs. assignees) and omits key details like what 'possible assignees' means (e.g., users with specific roles). No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return structure, but it does not.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value by noting that page and per_page control pagination and that metadata is included. However, the inaccurate statement about fetching RFI records undermines trust in parameter usage. The description does not explain what parameters determine the assignee list beyond project_id.

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 first sentence correctly states the tool fetches a list of possible assignees for an RFI, matching the tool name. However, the subsequent sentences claim it fetches full details of a specific RFI record, which contradicts the endpoint ('rfis/potential_assignees') and the parameter set. This mixed messaging obscures the true purpose.

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. Sibling tools like 'get_a_list_of_possible_rfi_managers_for_an_rfi' exist, but the description does not differentiate or offer usage context. The instruction 'Use this to fetch the full details...' is inaccurate and misleads.

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