List Possible Assignees (Project)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making it safe. Description adds value by detailing pagination behavior ('Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata') and specifying the API endpoint. No contradiction with 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?

Concise and well-structured: starts with the main purpose, then usage guidance, then pagination details, required parameters, and API context. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, required parameters, pagination, and API reference. Lacks explicit description of the output content (beyond 'JSON array of Workflows'), but given no output schema, this is adequate. Could mention that it returns assignee details like names or IDs.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter fully described. The description merely lists required parameters and reinforces pagination parameters ('Use page and per_page to control pagination'), adding no significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'workflows possible assignees', specifying the scope (for a given project and tool). Distinguishes from sibling 'list_possible_assignees_company' by the project-level context and endpoint URL. The description is specific and informative.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to enumerate Workflows when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' Provides actionable context. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for agent decision-making.

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