List All Project Crew Ids

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already convey safety. The description adds behavioral context: pagination with page/per_page, pagination metadata in response, and the HTTP method (GET). No contradictions. The added details justify a score above baseline.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, return format/pagination, and required parameter/API reference. No redundant words, front-loaded, and well-structured.

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?

The description covers pagination behavior and metadata, which is important since no output schema exists. It does not detail the fields in the returned Directory records (e.g., 'details' are vague). With moderate complexity and good annotations, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more explicit about response content.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description restates that project_id is required and clarifies usage of page/per_page for pagination. It does not elaborate on filters__updated_at. Since schema already covers parameters well, the description adds marginal value, meeting the baseline.

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 it returns crew IDs for a project with details and pagination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_all_project_crews' which presumably returns full crew objects. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling contrast.

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 use cases like enumerating Directory records and filtering, but does not indicate when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use 'list_all_project_crews' for full crew data). The guidance is present but incomplete.

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