list_board_collaborators

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral context: it costs one HTTP call and that collaborators come inline on the detail payload like get_board. This helps the agent understand performance and data structure 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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, explaining why it's canonical, and providing cost and follow-up guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (listing collaborators for a board) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, cost, and related tools. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 only parameter board_id is mentioned in the description but not described in detail. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one integer parameter, the context provided ('access to board_id') is sufficient for understanding. The schema itself defines constraints (minimum 1, required), so description adds marginal 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 clearly states the action ('List the users with access') and the specific resource (board_id). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting this is the canonical way to get user IDs, unlike get_board (inline collaborators) or get_user (richer fields).

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 states when to use this tool: to discover user IDs for assigned_user_id on tasks, as there is no bulk list-users endpoint. Provides context on cost (one HTTP call, same as get_board) and alternative for richer data (follow up with get_user).

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