List Action Plan Template Item Assignees

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

Annotations already convey readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds pagination metadata but misrepresents the resource as 'Action Plans' instead of 'Action Plan Template Item Assignees'. This factual error undermines transparency and could lead to incorrect modeling.

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 includes a significant inaccuracy ('Action Plans') that would require correction. It is not as concise as it could be, as it repeats information from the title and schema.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the return structure more clearly. It only says 'returns a paginated JSON array' without field details. The misidentification of the resource further reduces completeness for the agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination parameters and required project_id, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not elaborate on filters or sort, so no extra value.

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 starts well by stating 'List of all Action Plan Template Item Assignees', but then incorrectly refers to 'Action Plans' in the next sentence, creating ambiguity about the actual resource. It distinguishes from siblings only implicitly via name, but the mix-up reduces clarity.

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 says 'Use this to enumerate Action Plans when you need a paginated overview...' but this is generic and does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. With many sibling list tools like 'list_action_plan_item_assignees', no differentiation is given, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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